All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1 through misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (Defendant A) Defendant A merely sold L,O, P, Q, R, T, and S (hereinafter “L, etc.”) the 7th new shares of K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) to L, but did not commission L,O, P, Q, R, T, and share manipulation.

In addition, even though he did not know about the crime of manipulation of L et al., did not commit the crime of manipulation of stocks, and did not agree to obtain or distribute profits from such crime.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as a joint principal offender for the crime of conspiracy with L, etc., was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the conspiracy relationship and the functional control of the joint principal offender, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) Defendant B and C merely offered K’s shares as security upon L’s request, but did not conspired with L, etc. to commit a stock manipulation. Although the Defendants sold and sold the shares of K, they did not commit a stock manipulation only by their own investment decision.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendants as a joint principal offender for the crime of conspiracy with L, etc. was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the conspiracy relationship and the functional control of the joint principal offender, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment that the lower court sentenced to Defendant A and B (Defendant A and Defendant B: 1 and 2 years of suspended sentence of one year and six months of imprisonment; Defendant B: 2 years of suspended sentence of one year and one year of suspended sentence of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) As a result of the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant A acquired KRW 140,000,000, Defendant B’s 183,050,000, and Defendant C’s 809,806,720, and thus, each of the above amounts should be collected from the Defendants.

Nevertheless, the collection is made on the ground that the profits acquired by the Defendants cannot be specified due to the instant stock price manipulation.