Defendant 1 and four others

Kim Young-gu, missions (each indictment), Kim Chang-hee, minimum year, Kim Chang-hee, Kim Young-gu, Kim Min-young, Mamanman, Maman-dong, and Finalness (each trial)

Law Firm Sol, et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years and by a fine of 300,00,000 won, by imprisonment for four years and by a fine of 300,000,000 won and by imprisonment for one year and six months and fine of 300,000,00 won, and by imprisonment for one year and six months, and Defendant 5 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

When Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 did not pay the above fine, the Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 300,000 into each day.

However, the execution of the above punishment against Defendant 3 and Defendant 5 shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

From Defendant 2, KRW 1,642,672,541, KRW 159,230,996 from Defendant 4, and KRW 1,00,000,000 from Defendant 5 shall be additionally collected.

The above fines and additional charges shall be imposed on the defendants, respectively.

1) Criminal facts

『 2015고합69 』『 2015고합112 』『 2015고합113 』『 2015고합127 』

【Occupational and Criminal Power of Defendants and accomplicess】

Defendant 1, around June 2007, established a non-indicted 2 Company for the purpose of insurance agency business and financial product investment advisory business (hereinafter “non-indicted 2 Company”) and operated as the representative director on July 9, 2012, Defendant 1 acquired the non-indicted 1 Company (hereinafter “non-indicted 1 Company”) by using the funds raised by the non-indicted 2 Company on July 201, when he/she was operating as the representative director until July 9, 2012. From the time when he/she assumed office as the representative director of the non-indicted 1 Company to take over the non-indicted 1 Company (hereinafter “non-indicted 1 Company”) by using the funds raised by the non-indicted 2 Company (the trade name at the time was changed to the non-indicted 49 Company, the change to the non-indicted 1 Company on July 5, 2012; and thereafter, from the time when he/she taken office as the representative director of the non-indicted 1 Company to the present day.

On July 12, 2012, Defendant 2 was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of three years and six months to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) at Seoul High Court on March 27, 2014. On May 28, 2015, Defendant 2 was sentenced to two years to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the Seoul Central District Court on May 12, 2016 and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 12, 2016, and was sentenced to three years of the suspension of the execution of one year and six months to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) at the Seoul Southern District Court on January 7, 2016.

Defendant 3 is a professional investor who engages in the business of soliciting funds and securities accounts from investors to substitute for stock trading or to recommend investors to purchase stocks and to receive some of the profits if profits accrue.

From February 8, 2012 to October 19, 2012, Defendant 4 worked as a securities broadcasting expert (e.g., Internet securities information service site) operated by △△△TV from around February 8, 2012, and at the same time, operated the Internet pay securities club, and on June 27, 2014, Defendant 4 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months for a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act at the Seoul Southern District Court, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months on July 5, 2014.

Defendant 5 served as a director of Nonindicted Company 1 from March 2012 to July 2012.

As other co-offenders, Nonindicted 3 is a market manipulation expert, and Nonindicted 114 is a person employed by Nonindicted 3 at the office of Nonindicted 3 without any special occupation on the part of Nonindicted 3’s society in 2013. Nonindicted 7 is a market manipulation expert who conducts business such as consulting with respect to the company M&A and raising funds for purchase of stocks. Nonindicted 55 is a market manipulation expert who operates a “supply office” under the name of cash or stocks, and Nonindicted 21 is a market manipulation expert who performs the business of receiving cash or stocks and artificially supporting the stock price as a security deposit.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Market price manipulation with Defendant 2, Defendant 3, etc. in 2009

(a) The motive and conspiracy of crimes;

Defendant 2, around May 209, as at the time of Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted Company 50, the operator of Nonindicted Company 51 at the time of Nonindicted Company 1, and the operator of Nonindicted Company 49, consulted and mediated the acquisition of management rights of Nonindicted Company 1, which was concluded between Defendant 3, Nonindicted 7, etc., and Nonindicted Company 1, to artificially increase the share price of Nonindicted Company 1, and subsequently, through raising funds for the bonds, etc., to successfully participate in large-scale public offering of new stocks in the process of Nonindicted Company 1 and to acquire profits from the market price by disposing of the stocks of Nonindicted Company 1 acquired in high-priced price. Defendant 2 was in charge of establishing the overall plan, and Defendant 2 was in charge of raising the share price order to directly support the share price by using the name account, etc., and at the same time, to support the share price by inviting investors to purchase the stocks of Nonindicted Company 1, thereby concentrating the purchase price.

In addition, the Defendants, while supporting the share price as above, reached the highest point of KRW 3,675 on October 9, 2009, and when the share price of Nonindicted Co. 1 reached the highest point of KRW 3,675 on October 12, 2009, the Defendants requested Nonindicted Co. 5, a market manipulation expert operating the supply and demand office on October 19, 2009, to share price manipulation of KRW 1,963,500,00 ( KRW 2805,000 x 700,000) at the market price as at the time of the supply and demand for the share price manipulation from Nonindicted Co. 1’s company to share price increase at a high rate of KRW 1,963,50,00 as at October 19, 2009; Nonindicted Co. 55, upon receiving the share price increase from Nonindicted Co. 51 to the account as security at the time of the operation of the company’s name, etc.

B. Specific practice

No one shall mislead any person to cause a misunderstanding that the trading of listed securities or exchange-traded derivatives is booming, or cause another person to make a false judgment with an intention to transfer such securities or rights, and no one shall trade such securities or exchange-traded derivatives with an intention to cause another person to make a false judgment, nor shall he/she entrust, or be entrusted with, trading such securities or exchange-traded derivatives with an intention to attract another person to trade such securities or exchange-traded derivatives.

In the process of trading Nonindicted Company 1’s shares in collusion with Nonindicted 7, etc. in accordance with the aforementioned plan, Nonindicted 7 submitted an order for purchase of 11,946 shares at the Korea Exchange located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul to purchase 11,946 shares on May 19, 200, at around 09 09:00:02, Nonindicted 7, at the office located in Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, in the situation where the share price of Nonindicted Company 1 was 1,120 as of the present price of Nonindicted Company 1’s securities account (Account No. 7 omitted), at the 1,150 share price, the immediately preceding 30 won, and the other 30 share price was 11,946 share price.

In addition, the Defendants conspired with Non-Indicted 7, etc. to sell and purchase the shares of Non-Indicted 1 in collusion with Non-Indicted 7, etc., and ordered 213,239 shares so that they can be sold and sold at 4 times, such as Appendix I-1, and ordered 6,979,450 shares over 3,033 times for the purpose of inducing the sale and purchase, as shown in Appendix I-2, and ordered 2,858,838 shares over 285, as described in Appendix I-3, and submitted 20.6 shares price manipulation of Non-Indicted 1 to 2088,020 won and 19.6% of the shares of Non-Indicted 1 to 205.25% of the shares of Non-Indicted 9 to 209.6% of the shares of Non-Indicted 2, including Non-Indicted 1-4, 209.6% of the shares price manipulation of Non-Indicted 1, 2095.25% of the shares price manipulation

2. As to the manipulation of market prices in 2012 between the Defendants and accomplices

(a) The motive and conspiracy of crimes;

Defendant 1, around January 5, 201, through Nonindicted Co. 2, 201, made an investment in Nonindicted Co. 1 by raising KRW 5 billion through acquiring the preemptive right bonds of Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “BW”) by acquiring the preemptive right bonds of Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “BW”), and around that time, raised additional funds of KRW 1 billion in the form of shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 and purchased them in the form of shares of Nonindicted Co. 1. However, around February 2011, Defendant 1 became aware that the share price of Nonindicted Co. 1 falls short of the financial status, and around that time, Nonindicted Co. 1 was unlikely to recover investments in Nonindicted Co. 1, because it concerns that it would not recover investments in the financial structure of Nonindicted Co. 1. In order to recover investments by re-saleing the management right after improving the financial structure of Nonindicted Co. 1, 2011.

On April 2012, Defendants, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 21, etc., who were held by Nonindicted Company 2, sold shares acquired in the course of the set and disposed of shares, etc. acquired in support of Nonindicted Company 1’s share price, thereby acquiring profits from the market price, and Nonindicted Company 1 intended to prepare funds for the operation of the Company through the payment of the said set event price, etc., and resolve the shortage of funds by preparing the funds for the operation of the Company.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 and the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1 as well as the actual operator of Nonindicted Company 2 through the payment of the unit event price, and at the same time, some of the unit companies have approved the above plan in order to dispose of the stocks issued by directly exercising the name of the vehicle and to acquire profits by disposing of the stocks issued by them. Defendant 5, as a director of Nonindicted Company 1, served as the role of managing the unit in managing the unit held by Nonindicted Company 2 with the direction of Defendant 1, as a director of Nonindicted Company 1, and as a manager of Nonindicted Company 2, provided a unit.

In addition, Defendant 2 entered into a contract with Defendant 1 to take over a unit price of KRW 10 million (exercise price of KRW 5 billion) and played a general role in controlling the price of the company, such as: (a) the owner of the company to exercise the said unit price plan; (b) the business that was a material to support the share price of Nonindicted Company 1; and (c) the manipulation expert to manage the share price through the manipulation; and (d) Nonindicted 3, around April 2012, intended to dispose of the shares acquired by the Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Company 1 with profits from the disposal of the shares acquired by the said unit price; and (e) the company’s purchase of the shares by soliciting Nonindicted Company 1 to purchase the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 to the surrounding land, etc.; and (e) the company’s purchase of the shares under the name of Nonindicted Company 1 to support Nonindicted Company 1 by taking advantage of Nonindicted Company 1’s order to prevent the price decline; and (e) Nonindicted 1, 2012, who purchased the shares under the name of Nonindicted Company 1.

In addition, Defendant 3 received the sets of Nonindicted Company 1 through Defendant 2 at around April 2012, upon receipt of the request from Defendant 2 to find out the market price manipulation experts who will support the share price, and upon receipt of the request from Defendant 3, in order to dispose of the shares acquired by the event, and to realize the market price profit by disposing of the shares acquired by the event, Defendant 3 sought the sets of Nonindicted Company 1 to Defendant 4, the market price manipulation experts who were engaged in the activities in securities and broadcasting, and upon receipt of the request from Defendant 4 for the purpose of requesting the support of the share price of Nonindicted Company 1 by recommending Nonindicted Company 1 in the securities broadcasting, etc., Defendant 4, who was known about the sale of the shares at ordinary times around May 2012, purchased the shares at the same time by Defendant 1’s request to purchase and sell the shares from Nonindicted Company 1 through the securities broadcasting company 1’s first recommendation to purchase and sell the shares at the same time by Defendant 2’s request to purchase the shares from Nonindicted Company 3 1.

B. Specific practice

No one shall mislead any person to cause a misunderstanding that the trading of listed securities or exchange-traded derivatives is booming, or cause another person to make a false judgment with an intention to transfer such securities or rights, and no one shall trade such securities or exchange-traded derivatives with an intention to cause another person to make a false judgment, nor shall he/she entrust, or be entrusted with, trading such securities or exchange-traded derivatives with an intention to attract another person to trade such securities or exchange-traded derivatives.

피고인들은 공소외 3, 공소외 21 등과 공모하여 위와 같은 계획에 따라 공소외 1 회사의 주식을 매매하는 과정에서, 공소외 3은 2012. 5. 2. 09:05:04경 서울 송파구 ◁◁동에 있는 사무실에서 차명 증권계좌인 공소외 10 명의의 신한투자 증권계좌(계좌번호 8 생략)에서 공소외 1 회사의 현재 주가가 850원인 상황에서 직전가 대비 75원, 상대호가 대비 56원이 높은 925원에 100주의 매수주문을 제출하여 같은 날 서울 영등포구 여의도동 33에 있는 한국거래소에서 위 100주의 매매가 모두 체결되게 하였다.

In addition, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 21, etc. to sell and purchase the shares of Nonindicted Company 1; from May 2, 2012 to July 27, 2012, the Defendants submitted 30 securities accounts, such as Nonindicted 10, 282, 223 shares over 569 times, 1,284, 768 shares; from 20,925 shares to 17,92,39 shares for the purpose of inducing the purchase and sale of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1; from 20,612,39 shares to 27,99 shares for the purpose of inducing the purchase and sale of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1; and from 262,262 shares for the purpose of inducing the purchase and sale of the shares of Nonindicted Company 2; from 20,619 shares for the purpose of soliciting Nonindicted Company 1 to 30,619 shares for the purpose of purchasing the shares; and from 360,3645 shares for the attached Table 19.

3. As to the manipulation of market prices in 2013 by Defendant 1, etc.

(a) The motive and conspiracy of crimes;

Defendant 1, as described in paragraph (2) at the end of July 2012, when Nonindicted 3 was detained in a criminal case by another criminal case, as described in paragraph (2) at the request of Nonindicted 3, 2012, Defendant 1 suspended the above manipulation on August 2012, but at the end of March 2013, Nonindicted 3 was released from the office, decided to acquire gains from the market price through the event of Nonindicted 1 Company possessed by Nonindicted 2, which had existed at that time, at the same time in the same manner as described in paragraph (2) in order to raise operating funds of the company through the payment of the soft event, to supply Nonindicted 3 with the price manipulation of 180,00 shares in the name of Nonindicted 1 Company and to request Nonindicted 3 to manage the market price manipulation, and Nonindicted 3, upon receiving the order of Nonindicted 1 Company to sell or purchase shares at the same time with the order of Nonindicted 1 Company 1 to sell or purchase shares within the same time after receiving the order of 10,013 shares.

B. Specific practice

No one shall mislead any person to cause a misunderstanding that the trading of listed securities or exchange-traded derivatives is booming, or cause another person to make a false judgment with an intention to transfer such securities or rights, and no one shall trade such securities or exchange-traded derivatives with an intention to cause another person to make a false judgment, nor shall he/she entrust, or be entrusted with, trading such securities or exchange-traded derivatives with an intention to attract another person to trade such securities or exchange-traded derivatives.

In collusion with Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 21, and Nonindicted 114 in the course of trading the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 in accordance with the aforementioned plan, Nonindicted 3 submitted an order for purchase of KRW 14 and KRW 659 with the opposite 10 won compared to that of the immediately preceding 649 when the share price of Nonindicted Company 1 as of the present price of Nonindicted Company 1 was 649, at the Korea Exchange located in Yeongdeungpo-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul on April 29, 2013, at around 14:02:12, Nonindicted 3 entered into a trade of the said KRW 500,000 for the following day.

In addition, the Defendant conspired with Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 21, and Nonindicted 114 to sell and purchase the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 in collusion with Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 21, and Nonindicted 14, and caused another person to mislead or mislead the trading of the shares in the process of trading them, and submitted 12 securities accounts, such as Nonindicted 14, etc. from April 29, 2013 to August 26, 2013 to 114, to 67,906 shares over 264 times, 13) 680,006 shares, and 7.4% of the shares price manipulation of Nonindicted Company 1, 298, 297, 305 shares price manipulation, 30,75 shares price manipulation, 30,500 shares price manipulations, 30,745 shares price manipulations, 30,745 shares price manipulations, 30,745 shares price manipulations, 30,745 shares price manipulations.

4. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud);

(a) Status of the defendant;

While the Defendant had been operating Nonindicted Company 2, thereby soliciting the investment of KRW 5 billion, and accepting KRW 5 billion in the amount of KRW 5 billion in the BW of Nonindicted Company 1 on January 5, 2011, from February 2011, Nonindicted Company 1 was at risk of loss of the investment due to a sudden decline, Nonindicted Company 2 was willing to acquire Nonindicted Company 1 by investing additional funds. Accordingly, around July 2011, Nonindicted Company 2 raised the initial acquisition fund of KRW 7 billion from investors, and the Defendant, on July 25, 2011, prepared the “Agreement on Investment in Financial Restructuring Fund” with the former management on July 25, 201, and took over Nonindicted Company 117, a single shareholder of Nonindicted Company 1, and was appointed to the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1 on October 5, 2011.

B. Case background

The Defendant additionally borrowed KRW 3.18 billion to repay the former management’s debt from the time of the investment of Nonindicted Company 1’s BW investment to the time of the acquisition of management rights. The Defendant promised to sell and return the borrowed money to the creditors from July 2012. However, upon the occurrence of the period from July 2012, the Defendant made a contract for borrowing KRW 3.0 billion including the existing borrowed money from Nonindicted Company 29, Nonindicted 27, and Nonindicted 12 to the time of the acquisition of management rights. However, the Defendant borrowed KRW 29 billion from July 2012 to July 21, 2012, not from July 201, the Defendant borrowed KRW 3 billion including the existing borrowed money from Nonindicted Company 29, Nonindicted 27, and Nonindicted 12 to July 27, 2012. However, the Defendant borrowed KRW 29 billion from July 27, 2012 to July 28, 2017.

However, at the time, the Defendant used the loan to repay Nonindicted Co. 2’s existing investment funds, to acquire Nonindicted Co. 1’s friendship, and to demand the return of Nonindicted Co. 2’s existing investment funds. In addition, at around July 2012, Nonindicted Co. 1 did not have any financial soundness, such as the decrease in sales compared to the previous year and the increase in business operators. However, around December 2011, the Defendant sold a part of the company’s shares and sold them to the lower price of 20 billion won or more that the Defendant wants to sell them within one year. Moreover, the Defendant asserted that the sale of Nonindicted Co. 1 was promoted on August 201, 201, and that the sale of them was carried out in full-time from March 2013, but there was no specific negotiation on sales.

(c) Specific criminal acts by the defendant;

On August 25, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at the office of Nonindicted 35 of the victim Nonindicted 45, the victim and son of Nonindicted 45 in Seocho-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) stated, “The operation of Nonindicted 1 is well known; (b) the prospects for scarcitys projects are revealed; and (c) the U.S. company is interested in taking over the shares. However, the amount of funds is necessary for the purchase of shares to secure the management right of Nonindicted 1. When lending money, the Defendant sold the company within one year and sold the company, and, (d) borrowed the principal and the profits by July 17, 2013, the Defendant borrowed KRW 4 billion.”

However, at the time, Nonindicted Co. 1 borrowed funds from the investors of Nonindicted Co. 2 in order to reduce the sales revenue and increase the number of business operators, and thus, it was impossible to sell the funds once a year thereafter. Even if sold as desired, there was no possibility that the Defendant would receive the payment of all the existing loans and the profits remaining. Furthermore, the Defendant did not think of the Defendant’s repayment of Nonindicted Co. 43’s obligations with the money borrowed from the victim, but did not have the intent to use it for the purchase of shares to secure management rights, and it was thought that the Defendant would return the money from another person when the Defendant’s obligation to the victim reaches the maturity period. Accordingly, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, there was no possibility that the payment may be made within the given period.

On August 29, 2012, the Defendant concealed these circumstances and acquired money KRW 4 billion from the victim on August 29, 2012.

【Nos. 1- 2015 Highly 69, 112, 113】

1. The respective legal statements of the defendant 2 and the defendant 3

1. Among the sixth trial records, the witness Nonindicted 7 and the 13th trial records, each part of the witness’s statements made by Nonindicted 83, Nonindicted 52, and Nonindicted 55

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor in each protocol of interrogation of Defendants 2 and 3 of the prosecution;

1. Some statements among the copies of each protocol of interrogation of the suspect against Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 55 by the prosecution

1. Some of the written statements made by the prosecution against Nonindicted 87, Nonindicted 83, Defendant 119/Defendant 5, Nonindicted 52, Nonindicted 120, Nonindicted 115, and Nonindicted 121

1. Some of the statements made by the prosecution against Nonindicted 7 (Evidence Nos. 14)

1. A written statement prepared by Nonindicted 122

1. Report on the result of Nonindicted Company 1’s ordinary share review (Ⅰ)

1. Investigation reports and accompanying documents of each prosecutor's office (Evidence Nos. 65, 66, 69, 70, 74-76, 215, 216, 218, 220, 223, 224 of the evidence list);

【No. 2- 2015Gohap69, 112, 113】

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Partial statement of the witness Nonindicted 123

1. Among the witness’s protocol of the fourth trial, the witness Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 24, and Nonindicted 26 among the witness’s protocol of the 11, Nonindicted 26, and the 9th trial among the witness’s protocol of the 4th trial, the witness Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 22, and Nonindicted 14 among the witness’s protocol of the 4th trial of the 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 5 among the witness’s protocol of the 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 16th trial of the 15th trial of the 1, Defendant 4, Defendant 3, and Defendant 5, respectively.

1. The Defendants’ written statements in part of each protocol of interrogation of the prosecution (including the questioning part)

1. Some statements made in each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 21, and Nonindicted 23

1. Some of the statements made by the prosecutor (including the replacement part) on Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 43, Defendant 5, Nonindicted 13, and Nonindicted 26

1. Some of the statements made by the prosecutor about Nonindicted 124, Nonindicted 125, Defendant 4, and Nonindicted 126 in a copy of each prosecutor’s statement (including a substitute part)

1. Each written statement prepared by Nonindicted 98 and Nonindicted 44

1. Report on the result of Nonindicted Company 1’s ordinary share review (II)

1. Notice, comments and comments attached to the letter of complaint (Evidence No. 22) prepared by Nonindicted 124

1. Copy of the prosecutor's investigation report and documents attached thereto (No. 28 of the evidence list);

1. Each prosecutor's investigation report and attached documents (the evidence list Nos. 6, 7, 35-46, 61-64, 81, 82, 84, 85, 97-9, 104, 105, 110-115, 121-125, 127, 128, 128, 159-164, 168-183, 191-196, 230-232)

【No. 3 Crimes at the Time of Sale- 2015Gohap69, 112, 113】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Among the 4th trial records, the witness Nonindicted 21 and the 8th trial records among the witness Nonindicted 3 and the 5th trial records, the witness Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 41, and Nonindicted 22 of the witness’s respective statements in the 44th trial records among the witness Nonindicted 13 and Nonindicted 9 trial records.

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor in each protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 21

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor about Nonindicted 114 among the copies of each protocol of examination of suspect by prosecution

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 41, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 13, and Nonindicted 127

1. Each written statement prepared by Nonindicted 128 and Nonindicted 44

1. Report on the result of Nonindicted Company 1’s ordinary share review (III)

1. Each prosecutor's investigation report and accompanying documents (the evidence list Nos. 35-46, 127, 128);

[With respect to No. 4 in the market, - 2015 high-scale127]

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Each of the legal statements made by the witness, Nonindicted 35, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 12, and Nonindicted 29

1. Among the 11th trial records, the witness Nonindicted 43 and the 12th trial records, the witness Nonindicted 22 and the 14th trial records, each part of the witness Nonindicted 45's statements are written.

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor about Defendant 1 in each protocol of examination of suspect (including substitute part) of the prosecution;

1. Some of the written statements made by the prosecution against Nonindicted 35, Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 43/Public Prosecution 22, Nonindicted 12, and Nonindicted 29

1. Each prosecutor's investigation report and accompanying documents (the evidence list Nos. 50, 53-55);

1. Each police investigation report and accompanying documents (the evidence list Nos. 18, 20, 23, 28-32);

1. The full certificate of the registered matters of Nonindicted Company 1, the full certificate of the registered matters of Nonindicted Company 2, the loan contract, the loan contract, the loan contract (foreign 29), the loan contract (foreign 27), the loan contract (foreign 12), the loan contract (foreign 46), the loan contract and the evidence of Nonindicted Company 46, the agreement on the acquisition of the management right shares (foreign 47), the agreement on the acquisition of the management right shares (foreign 48), the BW 5 billion won repayment invested in Nonindicted Company 2, the agreement on the acquisition of the management right shares (foreign 45 billion won), the general list of the loan and the general list of the funds related to the acquisition of the management right of Nonindicted Company 2, the details of the loan by life, the annual statement of the loan, the account copy (10

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

Each reference to criminal records (Evidence Nos. 33, 148, 212), 2013 Highest 4053, 2014No210, respectively, of the text of the judgment of Seoul Southern District Court (Evidence No. 16), 3 copies (Evidence No. 211) of the judgment of Suwon District Court (Evidence No. 2011)

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 1: Articles 43(2)1, 443(1)4, and 5, 176(1)1, 2, and 3, and (2)1, and 447 of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (generally, the manipulation of market price in 2012, the choice of limited imprisonment, the concurrent imposition of fines), Article 43(1)4 and 5, Article 176(1)2, Article 37 of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(b) Defendant 2: Article 443(1)4 and 5 of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 176(1)1, 2, 3, and (2)1 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (generally referred to as "market price manipulation", Article 443(2)1, 4, and 5 of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 176(1)1, 2, 3, and 176(2)1 of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (generally referred to as "market price manipulation", Article 443(1)1, 4, and 5, Article 176(1)1, 2, and 3, and (2)1 of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

(c) Defendant 3: Articles 443(1)4 and 5, 176(1)1, 2, 3, 47(2)1, and 447(1) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (limited to annual manipulation, each of the manipulation of market prices of 2009 and 2012, each of which is selected as imprisonment, and both penalties);

D. Defendant 4 and Defendant 5: Each of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 43(1)4 and 5, Article 176(1)1, 2, 3, and 176(2)1, 3, and 1 of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 2: The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act (the crime of violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the crime of violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

(b) Defendant 4: The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act (trade between a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, for which judgment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (a)

(b) Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of the sum of the long-term punishments of two crimes as stipulated in the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to the manipulation of market prices in 2012 heavier than the punishment)

(c) Defendant 3: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the weight of concurrent crimes to imprisonment provided for in the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to manipulation of market price in 2012 with heavier penalty)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

A. Defendant 1: Article 53, Article 55(1)3, and Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

B. Defendant 2: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter the following sentencing grounds), 55(1)3

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 1 and Defendant 3: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 3 and Defendant 5: Article 62 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5: (a) Articles 10(1) and 8(1)1 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment [the amount to be collected in accordance with Article 10 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment] of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment is a voluntary collection of the nature of the deprivation of illegal profits that takes place rather than a punitive collection; (b) so whether to impose additional collection of property that meets the requirements for such additional collection is at the discretion of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2451, Jun. 14, 2007); and (c) the amount to be collected in consideration of the portion that actually accrued to the above Defendants out of the gains accrued during the pertinent

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. As to Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) due to the manipulation of market prices in 2009

A. Summary of the assertion

1) Defendant 2

Nonindicted Co. 49’s operation of Nonindicted Co. 50 was in charge of consulting on the acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 51’s shares and management right at the time of Nonindicted Co. 1’s major shareholder, and there was no instruction on the manipulation of Nonindicted Co. 7 and Defendant 3’s share price or participation in the manipulation of market price.

2) Defendant 3

After introducing Nonindicted Co. 1 from Nonindicted Co. 7, the issue was recommended or the purchase order was submitted upon the request from the account holder in consideration of the value of investment, and there was no act of price manipulation in collusion with Defendant 2, and the volume ordered by the Defendant and the relevant accounts did not affect the formation of the market price.

B. Relevant legal principles

1) At least two co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime do not legally require a certain type of punishment, but only a combination of intent to realize the crime through a joint processing of a crime by two or more persons. Even if there was no process of conspiracy, if there was a combination of intent to commit a crime in order or impliedly, the conspiracy is established between several persons, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of conspiracy are held liable as co-principal for the other co-principal’s act. In addition, such conspiracy or conspiracy constitutes a crime of conspiracy and conspiracy, and there is no strict proof to acknowledge it. However, if the defendant denies the criminal intent as well as the fact that he directly participated in the act of the commission, it is inevitable to prove it by the method of proving indirect facts having considerable relevance to the criminal intent in light of the nature of things, and what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance should be reasonably determined based on normal empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4779, Apr. 27, 2006). 206.

2) For the purpose of Article 176(2) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, the term “purposes to attract a trade” means trading with a view to inducing investors to trade securities by misunderstanding that the market price was formed by the natural demand and supply rules in the securities market, despite of artificially manipulating the market price, and thus creating a fluctuation in the market price. There is no question as to whether the market price exists for other purposes or its main purpose, and the degree of awareness as to the purpose is sufficient. Furthermore, the term “trade that misleads investors of or changes the market price as to the trading price of the securities or exchange-traded derivatives,” under subparagraph 1 of the same Article means trading that is likely to cause an artificial change in the market price and trading volume in the free competition market due to normal demand and supply. It does not require a change in the market price, and if a series of acts are conducted, it is sufficient that the overall act would cause a change in the market price as a whole due to such acts, such as an overall increase in the market price and trading volume before and after the issuance of the securities.

C. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court in light of the aforementioned legal principles, Defendant 2 notified Nonindicted 7, etc. of the fact of capital increase prior to the public disclosure of capital increase for the purpose of success of Nonindicted Company 1’s capital increase to the public to collect Nonindicted Company 1’s stocks, and Defendant 3 participated in the manipulation of market price and manipulation of market price as stated in the criminal facts stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article in the judgment of the court below.

A) On May 2009, Defendant 2 consulted the process of acquiring the shares and right of management of Nonindicted 50, a major shareholder of Nonindicted 49, with the acquisition of the shares and right of management of Nonindicted 51, a major shareholder of Nonindicted Company 1. At the time, Nonindicted 50, a major shareholder, agreed to pay the funds received from Nonindicted Company 1 as collateral and the funds received from Nonindicted Company 1 as collateral and the funds received from Nonindicted Company 49 as collateral, and attempted to acquire the shares and right of management of Nonindicted Company 1 in the form of so-called “Non-Indicted 1” (see, e.g., evidence record 3624.

B) The investment in Nonindicted Co. 1 in Nonindicted Co. 49 was under the condition that Nonindicted Co. 50 be responsible for the funds necessary for the capital increase with capital increase of Nonindicted Co. 1 and invested as the payment for the said investment. Nonindicted Co. 50 should succeed to the capital increase with capital increase of Nonindicted Co. 1 in order to raise the acquisition price (or around May 2009, the share price of Nonindicted Co. 1 was crossed at KRW 700-800, and Nonindicted Co. 500, the share price of Nonindicted Co. 1 was 500,000,000,000 won that Nonindicted Co. 50 was first acquired from Nonindicted Co. 51, because it was difficult for Nonindicted Co. 1 to receive the relevant acquisition price of KRW 17.5 billion, and Defendant 2 also was able to take profits, such as acquiring the price for the capital increase of Nonindicted Co. 1 and its success.

C) On May 25, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 1 published the decision to issue new shares via public offering equivalent to about 15 billion won. However, on several occasions thereafter, the public notice was made on August 24, 2009, and the public notice was finally made on August 24, 2009. In order to attract general investors to participate in such public offering, there was a need for share price increase.

D) Defendant 2 notified Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 49’s M&A and capital increase plan to increase the number of stocks issued by Nonindicted Co. 7 and Nonindicted Co. 52 before the first public announcement on May 25, 2009, and around that time, Nonindicted Co. 7 notified Defendant 3 of the said fact. Accordingly, Defendant 3, Nonindicted Co. 7, and Nonindicted 52, etc. purchased Nonindicted Co. 1’s stocks prior to the public announcement on May 25, 2009, and suspended the purchase due to the delay of capital increase.

E) On August 24, 2009, Defendant 2 recommended purchase by informing Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 52, etc. of the subscription for new shares issued on or before the public announcement of the decision on the subscription for new shares issued, and around that time, Nonindicted 7 notified Defendant 3 of the above information. Accordingly, Defendant 3, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 52, etc. have been able to submit an order for purchase of market price manipulation or recommend other persons to purchase the shares that he participated in the subscription for new shares issued by Nonindicted Company 1 at a price more than twice the subscription price. Furthermore, Defendant 3 sold the shares that he participated in the subscription for new shares issued by Nonindicted Company 1 at a higher price than the subscription price.

F) Meanwhile, in order to prevent the increase in the quantity of the shares distributed through the offering of new shares as collateral, Nonindicted 50 and Defendant 2 participated in the offering of new shares as collateral. After the success of the offering of new shares, it was necessary to maintain the share price at a certain level or prevent the decline in the share price caused by the sale of the new shares in order to avoid the risk of the opposite trade from the bond company. In addition, Defendant 2 borrowed funds from Nonindicted 54 to Nonindicted 54 as collateral by acquiring the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 from Nonindicted 53 along with Nonindicted 7, and Defendant 2 demanded Nonindicted 55 to purchase the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 as collateral, and requested Nonindicted 7, etc. to purchase the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 in order to prevent the decline in the share price due to the decline in the sale of the shares held by Nonindicted 54 on October 19, 209.

2. As to the Defendants’ violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to market price manipulation in 2012

A. Determination on the Defendants’ participation in market price manipulation

1) Summary of the assertion

A) Defendant 1

After acquiring Nonindicted Company 1, in order to promote new projects by investing in Nonindicted Company 28 and promoting new projects, Defendant 2 transferred to Nonindicted Company 1’s Company Company Company Company’s warranty amounting to KRW 10 million owned by Nonindicted Company 2. In addition, Nonindicted 3, who paid the payment for the exercise of the set at Defendant 2’s recommendation, demanded compensation for losses arising therefrom on April 30, 2012, when Nonindicted Company 1’s share price drops on the wind that was not released from the distribution of investment attention. Nonindicted 3’s pressure on Nonindicted Company 3’s repeated demand for the payment of unfair funds may affect the company, thereby making payment of the money to Nonindicted 3 was inevitable, and there was no conspiracy for price manipulation with the above Defendant or any instruction to the Defendant on his market price manipulation, and furthermore, Nonindicted 3’s act did not materially affect the formation of market price.

B) Defendant 2

On April 30, 2012, Nonindicted Co. 1 was anticipated to be released from the distribution of investment attention, and recommended Nonindicted Co. 3 to pay for the event of Nonindicted Co. 1’s stocks, unlike anticipated, but after Nonindicted Co. 3 received a claim from Nonindicted 3 because of Nonindicted Co. 3’s direct contact with Defendant 1, Nonindicted Co. 3 did not actively engage in the price manipulation of Nonindicted Co. 1’s stocks, such as ordering Nonindicted Co. 3 or Defendant 3 to make a price manipulation or paying a price manipulation fund.

C) Defendant 3

Defendant 2 introduced Nonindicted Company 109, which was operated by Nonindicted Company 16, to acquire KRW 2 million of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 by Nonindicted Company 1, upon receiving the proposal from Nonindicted Company 2, and there was no fact that Nonindicted Company 109, which was operated by Nonindicted Company 16, conspired to manipulate the market price of the shares of Nonindicted Company 3 and Nonindicted Company 1, or ordered Defendant 4 to manipulate the market price.

D) Defendant 4

The non-indicted 1's various types of mutual aid materials reported by himself/herself, and recommended the members of ○○○ Association, an Internet securities broadcasting business entity, to purchase the shares of the non-indicted 1 on June 12, 2012 and on the 13th day of the same month, and there was no request from the defendant 3 to recommend the purchase of the shares of the non-indicted 1, and there was no request from the non-indicted 3 to purchase the shares to increase the share price, and there was no omission in the solicitation of market manipulation with the above defendants, such as there was no distribution of the price

E) Defendant 5

In accordance with the order of Defendant 1, the commercial party, only delivered the market price manipulation fund to Nonindicted 3, and there was no collusion with the upper party or any leading participation in the market price manipulation activities.

2) Relevant legal principles

A) See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4947 Decided July 26, 2002 and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7471 Decided November 29, 2007, etc.

B) For the purpose of inducing a trade" in Article 176(2) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, the term "purposes to attract an investor to trade" means the purpose of inducing investors to trade listed securities, etc. by misunderstanding that the market price was formed by the natural demand and supply principle in the market. The term "trade that misleads investors, or causes changes in the market price" in subparagraph 1 refers to trade that is likely to cause an artificial change in the market price and trading volume formed in the free competition market due to its normal demand and supply as other factors not attributable to market factors. The above purpose is to determine whether there is existence or main purpose of other purposes, and the degree of recognition of the purpose thereof does not require active desire or final recognition, and it is sufficient to determine whether there is an incomplete recognition of the market price. The above purpose and degree of market price manipulation is 0.10% of the total trading volume before and after the issuance of listed securities, etc., or 25% of the trading volume (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da162581, supra, etc.).

3) Basic facts

According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) Defendant 1’s establishment and operation of Nonindicted Company 2

Defendant 1 has established and operated a non-indicted 2 corporation around June 2007 with the aim of finding the investment sources and obtaining funds from the following assets and creating profits.

B) Nonindicted Co. 2’s acquisition process

① Around January 2011, Defendant 1 selected Nonindicted Company 107, which owned the △△ iron mine that was located in the Investment Source of Nonindicted Company 2, and then acquired KRW 5 billion from Nonindicted Company 1 (the trade name was at the time Nonindicted Company 49 was, and the management was, Nonindicted Company 5,000,000,000 won, including KRW 1 billion,043,134, and KRW 170,000,000,000,000,000 won (the title was at the time, Nonindicted Company 49, and KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was KRW 50,000,000 from Nonindicted Company 50 on January 6, 2011, including KRW 1,043,134, and KRW 170,00,00,00).

② Since then, Nonindicted Co. 1 was placed in the situation of delisting and dishonoring due to serious financial difficulties. Defendant 1 entered into an agreement on July 25, 201 with Nonindicted Co. 2’s total amount of KRW 7 billion (7 billion) KRW 7 billion (7 billion) with the funds raised by Nonindicted Co. 50 billion. At the time, Nonindicted Co. 1’s shares held by Nonindicted Co. 117 and KRW 4.5 million with the shares of Nonindicted Co. 117, and KRW 100,000 with the shares of Nonindicted Co. 117, and KRW 50,000 with the shares of Nonindicted Co. 117, and KRW 100,000 with the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 held by Nonindicted Co. 50 and related parties (see, e.g., KRW 2 billion with the face value, KRW 2,2 million), and KRW 100,100,000,000).

C) Defendant 5’s developments leading to the purchase and membership of Nonindicted Company 1

① Defendant 1 was aware of Defendant 5, who was in the process of acquiring Nonindicted Company 1 from Nonindicted 50 in the process of acquiring Nonindicted Company 50. While managing Nonindicted Company 1, Defendant 5 asked Defendant 5 to purchase Nonindicted Company 1’s shares in order to secure the friendship of Nonindicted Company 2. Accordingly, Defendant 5 did not submit an agreement on the period of possession of shares by extending the period of possession of the shares by 1,37,926 shares of Nonindicted Company 1 on November 23, 201, on the condition that Defendant 1’s joint and several surety, guarantee of principal of purchase of shares and payment of 1% per month, and payment of 1,37,926 shares after the lapse of the period of possession and possession of shares between the two months, on the condition that all profits from the disposal of shares were occupied by the shares (see, e.g., evidence record 409 and evidence submitted by Defendant 5, 1, 2009).

② In addition, on January 13, 2012, Defendant 5 lent KRW 500 million to Nonindicted Company 1 for the use of Nonindicted Company 1’s 9th issue BW repayment fund (the first repayment date was extended on March 12, 2012, but later extended on May 13, 2012, interest rate was 2% prior to the repayment date), and Defendant 5 received the straw of the 9th BW repayment with the said loan, and was offered as security of Nonindicted Company 1 B in an amount equivalent to KRW 1 billion. On April 24, 2012, Defendant 5 agreed to receive KRW 500 million in the name of Nonindicted Company 1’s third issuance date owned by Nonindicted Company 2, which was repaid in the name of Nonindicted Company 15 (see, e.g., evidence record).

③ 한편 피고인 5는 피고인 1에게 공소외 1 회사의 신규사업으로 배우 공소외 110 관련 사업 추진을 제안하면서 피고인 2를 소개하였고, 뒤에서 보는 바와 같이 공소외 1 회사에서 공소외 28 회사(당시 상호는 ‘▷▷’이었고 이후 ‘공소외 28 회사’로 상호변경, 이하 ‘공소외 28 회사’라고 함)에 투자하기로 결정한 이후인 2012. 3. 28.부터 공소외 1 회사의 이사로 근무하기 시작하여 2012. 8. 2.경 퇴사하였다.

D) Network transfer and investment agreement between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

① On March 5, 2012, Defendant 1 transferred to Nonindicted Company 129, a total of KRW 10 million per share of KRW 18 billion (in face value, KRW 5 billion per share) of Nonindicted Company 1’s 3rd issue box of Nonindicted Company 1, which is in possession of Nonindicted Company 2, to Nonindicted Company 2, KRW 129,000,000 per share of KRW 18 billion, and thereafter, Defendant 2 agreed to invest KRW 2.5 billion in Nonindicted Company 28 (Evidence evidence record 3905). However, unlike the agreement, Nonindicted Company 2 did not pay KRW 10,000,00,000 per share of KRW 2,00 per share of KRW 10,000 per share, and Defendant 2 did not pay KRW 2,000,000 per share of KRW 10,000,000,000 per share of the event.

② Defendant 2 included the unit price of KRW 5 billion in the face value of Nonindicted Company 1’s third-party company 1’s third-party issuance, between April 19, 2012 and June 27, 2012, the unit price of Nonindicted Company 1’s unit price is as indicated below [Attachment 1] (see, e.g., Table 2976 of the Evidence Record and No. 191-196 of the Evidence List).

[Attachment 1]

Defendant 2, Nonindicted Company 2, 70 billion won (2,00,000) on April 19 (2012), Nonindicted Company 2, 700,000 won (2,00,000), Nonindicted Company 2, 70,000 won (2,00,000), Nonindicted Company 2, 70,000 won (2,00,000,000) on April 25, 2012, Nonindicted Company 1, 70,000 KRW 70,00 won (20,000,000 KRW 70,000), Nonindicted Company 2, 60,000,00 KRW 70,000 (2,000,00 KRW 6,00,00), Nonindicted Company 1, 706,000,00 KRW 70,00,00)

E) Current status and share price of Nonindicted Company 1

① Nonindicted Co. 1 was designated as an issue of investment caution on April 29, 201 on the ground of frequent replacement, etc. by management, and was not released from the issue of investment caution even until April 30, 2012.

② From March 17, 2012 to April 4, 2012, Nonindicted Co. 1 maintained a level of 100 to 600 to 800 won. However, from April 17, 2012 to April 980, 2012, she was not released from the category of investmentism, and she continued to drop up to 660 won until May 9, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 600 to 600 won until June 11, 2012; 200 to 30.6 billion won from June 11, 2012; 20 to 3.6 billion won from June 20, 2012, she maintained a level of 20 to 3.6 billion won from the decline of 20 to 3.6.7 billion won from June 11, 2012.

4) Determination

A) Determination as to Defendant 1

Considering the above basic facts and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant participated in the manipulation of market price stated in the crime of paragraph (2) of the judgment in collusion with the above defendants, such as: (a) Nonindicted 3 was aware that the share price of Nonindicted Company 1 was artificially increased and used for this purpose; and (b) Defendant 2, etc. was paid price manipulation funds to Nonindicted 3; and (c) Defendant 2, etc. was divided into profits by providing a set to the investors in water

① As seen below, the Defendant paid Nonindicted 3, who is the party to the market price manipulation, a sum of KRW 350 million in checks and KRW 150 million in cash, to Nonindicted 3, who is the party to the market price manipulation, as follows.

Unlike the anticipated on April 30, 2012, Non-Indicted 1 Company was not released from the category of investment attention, and the stock price drops on the wind. Prior to that, Non-Indicted 3, who used a warranty with Non-Indicted 13 via Defendant 2, anticipated losses arising from the stock price decline, and requested the Defendant, who is the manager of Non-Indicted 1, at the beginning of May 2012, who was found to be the legal office working by Defendant 2, and demanded that the Defendant communicate with Non-Indicted 3 at the office of Defendant 2. Accordingly, at that time, the Defendant met Non-Indicted 3, along with Defendant 2, Defendant 5, and Non-Indicted 23 at the office of Defendant 2. At that time, Non-Indicted 3 was considered to have suffered losses due to the stock price decline, and demanded for purchase of the shares through the stock purchase by compensating for losses.

Defendant 5, upon receipt of the Defendant’s order on June 13, 2012 from Nonindicted 22, who was instructed by the Defendant on June 13, 2012, paid to Nonindicted 3 a check worth KRW 350 million, which is the funds of Nonindicted Company 2. At that time, Defendant 5 received cash worth KRW 150 million from Nonindicted 23 who invested KRW 500 million at the time of acquisition of Nonindicted Company 1, and paid it to Nonindicted 3. After receipt of the Defendant’s order, Nonindicted 22 sold approximately KRW 110,00 shares of Nonindicted Company 1 owned by Nonindicted Company 2, and returned the said money to Nonindicted 23, thereby eventually, the Defendant paid KRW 150,000 to Nonindicted 3 (this appears to have been returned from Nonindicted Company 1’s shares on July 1, 2012).

On the other hand, upon receiving KRW 350 million from Defendant 5 on June 13, 2012, Nonindicted 3 drafted a written confirmation that “The amount was received in order to purchase shares of Nonindicted Company 1, and settled in cash after shares or sale on the date agreed between the parties, but if the amount falls short of the amount in the settlement of accounts, it shall be appropriated first from 50% of the sales revenue after the conversion into the unit that would be distributed with profits (see, e.g., evidence record 3986 pages).”

㉣ 이와 관련하여 피고인은, 공소외 3에게 지급한 금원은 시세조종 자금이 아니라 주가 하락에 따른 손실보전금이라는 취지로 주장하나, 공소외 3이 작성한 위 확인서의 기재 내용에다가 공소외 3에게 금원을 지급할 무렵에는 공소외 1 회사의 주가가 급상승하고 있어(당시 공소외 3은 워런트를 행사하여 전환한 주식들을 매각하지 아니한 채 대부분 보유하고 있었음) 공소외 3이 금원을 요구하던 때와는 달리 주가하락에 따른 손실금을 지급해야 할 상황이 아니었던 점 등을 감안하여 보면, 피고인이 그 당시 공소외 3에게 지급한 금원은 시세조종 자금 용도로 지급하였다고 봄이 상당하다.

② Furthermore, when Defendant 2 was unable to color the warranty event event according to the agreement on March 5, 2012, the Defendant: (a) induced funds from Nonindicted Company 12 and Nonindicted Company 2 (titled Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 4), an investor of Nonindicted Company 2, and exercised part of the warranty that Defendant 2 acquired; (b) paid the shares equivalent to 50% of the profits therefrom to Defendant 5; and (c) distributed profits from the warranty event to Defendant 2 (see, e.g., evidence record 406-4007 pages; and (d) according to this, Defendant 5, who was in charge of the warranty-related business, returns the remainder of the shares excluding the shares equivalent to 50% of the profits converted from the exercise of the warranty of Nonindicted Company 12 and Nonindicted Company 2, to Defendant 1).

③ Around July 2012, the Defendant made a repayment to Nonindicted Company 2 with Nonindicted Company 1’s B 5 billion won (i.e., the initial repayment period, but most of them were extended on or around July 2012, 2012) in order to make an investment (i.e., around January 201). Around that time, Nonindicted Company 2 made a repayment with the funds of Nonindicted Company 1 owned by Nonindicted Company 2, and (ii) made a repayment with the funds of Nonindicted Company 1. Since the funds were insufficient at that time, the Defendant recommended Nonindicted Company 1 to sell part of the investment funds with Nonindicted Company 1’s stocks (i.e., settlement at a price lower than the market price at that time) and not sell them (see, e.g., evidence records 3899, supra). At that time, the Defendant as the Defendant had to make a repayment to investors or to make a repayment with Nonindicted Company 1’s stocks, and thus, it appears that there was a concern that the investors would have come to exercise the stocks at a certain level.

④ On the other hand, around May to June, 2012, the Defendant introduced Nonindicted 24 and Nonindicted 25, a market price manipulation force, through Defendant 3. In addition, Nonindicted 26, a different market price manipulation force, was met.

B) Determination on Defendant 2

In light of the above legal principles and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant participated in the manipulation of market price as stated in the crime of paragraph (2) of the judgment in collusion with Nonindicted 3 and the above defendants by promising to distribute profits to Nonindicted 3 and giving instructions to purchase shares, etc.

① Nonindicted 3 began to purchase Nonindicted Company 1’s shares upon receiving a request from the Defendant to collect shares in order to prevent share price decline due to the exercise of Nonindicted Company 1’s sets.

② The Defendant, while soliciting Nonindicted 3 to make a unit investment, promised to divide 50 billion won of profits from the exercise of the unit price of KRW 5 billion on one’s face value, into Nonindicted 3 and half, and further, delivered the unit price of KRW 900 million on one’s face value to Nonindicted 3. This seems to be compensation for the price manipulation.

③ The Defendant was able to receive investment from Nonindicted Company 1 in funds necessary for Nonindicted Company 28’s business by exercising the warranty that he acquired, and the funds were to be received from Nonindicted Company 1. However, at the time of the acquisition of the set, Nonindicted Company 1’s share price was not much different from KRW 500, which is the value of the set event, due to the situation where the share price of Nonindicted Company 1 was 600 to 800 won, and there was a concern that the share price may decline more (if the shares converted from the unit price were to be a large quantity of goods), and at the time, it was necessary to prevent Nonindicted Company 1 from artificially raising or lowering the share price of Nonindicted Company 1 in order to seek a person holding the set-up event.

④ Meanwhile, Defendant 3 introduced Defendant 1 to Defendant 1, and introduced Nonindicted Company 1 to Defendant 4, and Defendant 3 introduced Nonindicted Company 1 to Defendant 3.

⑤ From April 30, 2012, Defendant 2: (a) sought profits from the use of a set in the name of Nonindicted Company 129, which he actually operated; (b) received part of the shares issued from Nonindicted Company 12 and Nonindicted Company 2 (titled Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 4), which Defendant 1 had been attracting, as profits; and (c) received some of the shares issued from Defendant 1 as profits from the set used by Nonindicted Company 109, which he used by Nonindicted Company 109, which he had colored, from Defendant 3, received some of the profits from the set used by Nonindicted Company 109 (in this regard, the Defendant received money from Defendant 3, but it is difficult to believe that it was partially borrowed money from Nonindicted 3 while delivering it to Nonindicted 3). Furthermore, the Defendant paid part of the profits received as such, and there was a dispute between Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2.

④ In a case where Nonindicted 14 (titled Nonindicted 133 and Nonindicted 134) was converted from the sale of the shares converted from the exercise of a unit price manipulation, the Defendant did not sell all the shares converted from that of Nonindicted 14 (titled Nonindicted 133 and Nonindicted 134) on or around May 2012 before the date on which the share price was misleadd. However, according to Nonindicted 137’s statement by the witness Nonindicted 137, Nonindicted 14 did not sell the shares converted from that of the Defendant, but did not sell the shares arbitrarily, without notifying the Defendant.

C) Judgment on Defendant 3

In light of the above legal principles and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was involved in the manipulation of market price as stated in paragraph (2) of the judgment in collusion with Nonindicted 3 and the above defendants, by having Defendant 4, who operates △△ club, recommend the majority of its members to recommend the shares of Nonindicted Company 1.

① Around April 2012 to May 5, 2012, the Defendant solicited Nonindicted Company 1 to hold a warranty, and around that time, introduced Nonindicted Company 1 to Nonindicted Company 1, who is the market price manipulation force. Nonindicted Party 24 and Nonindicted 25, who was the recipient of the market price manipulation sent by Nonindicted Party 111, visited Nonindicted Company 1’s office with Nonindicted Party 1 and attempted to interview Defendant 1 and Defendant 5, etc., and led Nonindicted Party 1 to a market price manipulation force.

② The Defendant introduced Defendant 4 from Nonindicted 112 to a person operating the Internet Securities Broadcasting and Internet fee-charging Securities Chion. At that time, Defendant 4 told Defendant 1 to the effect that, while engaging in Nonindicted Company 1’s performance of Nonindicted Company 1’s business, etc., Nonindicted Company 1 will bring about a future share price. After that, Defendant 4 recommended Nonindicted Company 1’s shares to its members, the share price of Nonindicted Company 1 increased considerably as Defendant 4 recommended Nonindicted Company 1’s shares.

③ On April 1 to 5, 2012, when the Defendant was solicited by Defendant 2 to hold a set event, the Defendant refused to do so, but sold Nonindicted Company 16, which was operated by Nonindicted Company 109, on June 11, 2012, around the time immediately preceding the share price increase, and subsequently, made profits by selling the shares converted by exercising a set worth of KRW 1 billion.

④ Although there is a disagreement between Defendant 3, Defendant 2, and Nonindicted 3 on the amount paid, the Defendant paid part of the profits from the set used in the name of Nonindicted Company 109 to Nonindicted 3 via Defendant 2, and upon Nonindicted 3’s request, the Defendant introduced Defendant 4 to Nonindicted 3, upon Nonindicted 3’s request, who requested the introduction of a person who bought the share price after the share price rise.

⑤ In addition, the Defendant introduced Nonindicted 111 to Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 111 knew to Nonindicted 24, who is operating the Securities Exchange as Defendant 4, and also introduced Defendant 4.

D) Determination as to Defendant 4

Considering the above basic facts and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, through Defendant 3, was involved in the act of price manipulation as stated in the crime of paragraph (2) of the judgment, in collusion with the above defendants in order with the above defendants, such as: (a) although the defendant was aware that he had the ability to control the shares of Nonindicted Company 1; and (b) allowing members of △△ Group to purchase the shares of Nonindicted Company

(1) △△ club operated by the Defendant has reached 400 members with no limit of 400 members, and where the Defendant actively recommends the purchase of the shares recommended by his/her members after designating the items, the purchase price was the volume of shares that can increase because the shares purchased by his/her members might be increased.

② It appears that △△△ members were dependent on the information presented by the Defendant regarding stock investment by paying a considerable amount of 700,000 won per month (1.5 million won upon joining the 3-month membership) and hearing the Defendant’s securities broadcasting. In fact, the trading volume of the Defendant recommended to purchase to its members on June 12, 2012 and June 13, 2012 increased rapidly, and the share price increased rapidly.

③ When Defendant 3 heard her fluorial material from Defendant 112, who was the introduction of Nonindicted Co. 112, that the share price would come out, the Defendant confirmed it through the Internet articles, etc., and recommended purchase based on the positive judgment. However, on April 26, 2012, Nonindicted Co. 1 had already been published on April 28, 201, but the investment in Nonindicted Co. 28 was not released from the investment scheme, and the share price drops without being released from the investment scheme, and an article on the plan for the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was already reported on around 2011 or early 2012. After the Defendant recommended the purchase to its members, the Defendant did not look at the financial status of Nonindicted Co. 1’s commercial production and the production of ○○○○○○○○○○○ after having been reported on June 27, 2012.

④ After the share price rise at the investigative agency, the Defendant met Nonindicted Co. 3 with the introduction of Defendant 3. On that spot, Nonindicted Co. 1 was asked from Nonindicted Co. 3 to recommend its members to hold the shares purchased, so that they would continue to sell them. Since July 2012, 200, the Defendant recommended its members to hold the shares, even after the price of the 1,000 won, which was presented as the share price, was left at the beginning of July 2012, when the share price of the 1,00 won, which was presented as the share price, due to the cryptive material, and to hold the shares. Nonindicted Co. 3 was detained on another case on July 26, 2012, and the share price continued to decline without contact, and on August 8, 2012, recommended its members to sell the shares (see, e.g., evidence record 1607, 283-2846-2867, respectively).

⑤ Defendant 3 made a statement that, although there was no promise at the investigative agency to specify the unit volume of the Defendant at a fixed time at the investigation agency, the Defendant was asked from the Defendant to inquire about whether Nonindicted Company 1 could seek a unit prior to the increase in the share price of Nonindicted Company 1 (Evidence record 2680 pages, Defendant 3’s statement at the investigative agency that the Defendant asked the Defendant to provide unit was by mistake, and the above statement was reversed to the court. However, as seen below, Defendant 3’s statement at the investigative agency was specific and detailed, it was more reliable when considering the circumstances that Defendant 3 tried to additionally seek unit, etc. at the investigative agency around that time, it was possible to provide the Defendant with an additional unit at the time after exercising the unit in the name of Nonindicted Company 109, and it appears that Defendant 3 was unable to provide the Defendant with an additional unit to Defendant 1 or 2 with an additional unit to Defendant 1 or 2.

(6) Even if the Defendant did not receive any set from Defendant 3, etc. or received any profit, the Defendant may not be exempted from liability as long as it had already been established in violation of the Capital Market and Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act by sharing the share price manipulation according to Defendant 3’s agreement with Defendant 3, etc. Furthermore, the Defendant purchased Nonindicted Company 1’s shares from June 11, 2012 to Nonindicted 17 and Nonindicted 18, etc., one of his own borrowed name accounts before recommending the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 to be sold to △△△ Group members (see e.g., e., Table 110-115).

E) Judgment on Defendant 5

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 3 and the Defendant in the order of the first instance court, was involved in the act of price manipulation as stated in the crime of paragraph (2) above, beyond simply performing the business related to the delivery of market price manipulation funds and the warranty-related business according to Defendant 1’s order.

① Defendant 1 introduced Nonindicted Co. 28 and Defendant 2, who will undertake the new business of Nonindicted Co. 1.

② After Nonindicted Company 1 decided to make an investment in Nonindicted Company 28, the Defendant began to serve as a director of Nonindicted Company 1, and Defendant 2 acquired and took charge of duties related to Nonindicted Company 1’s event and participated in the distribution of profits from the said event. Furthermore, the Defendant did not pay 380,000 shares that were distributed to Nonindicted Company 1 to Defendant 2, etc. under the name of the unit that was used by Defendant 12, but did not pay 380,00 shares to Defendant 2, etc. (the evidence record 4007 pages was returned to Nonindicted 12).

③ Meanwhile, according to Defendant 1’s request, the Defendant held Nonindicted Company 1’s shares. In lending KRW 500 million to Nonindicted Company 1, the Defendant sold all of the shares held after converting the amount of KRW 500 million per face value of the 9th issue price and the 3rd issue price received in lieu of the repayment of the said loan, into the shares during the market price manipulation period, as indicated in [Attachment 1], and then converting the amount of KRW 500 million into the shares during the market price manipulation period

F) Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are joint principal offenders of the market price manipulation crime as stated in the judgment of the court.

B. Determination on the unjust enrichment by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

1) Relevant legal principles

The term “profit accrued from a violation” under the proviso of Article 443(1) and (2) of the Capital Markets Act means the gross income generated from a transaction related to the violation, which is recognized as having a causal relationship with the risk arising from such violation. In ordinary cases, the difference may be calculated by calculating the gross income generated from a transaction related to the violation after deducting the total cost for such transaction. However, if there are circumstances to deem that calculating the value of the profit accrued from a specific violation, such as a rise in share price caused by a change in the normal market or an increase in share price caused by a third party unrelated to the violator, it is unreasonable to calculate the value of the profit generated from such violation by the above method, referring to the legislative purport of Article 443 of the said Act and the principle of liability under the criminal law, not to mention the motive, circumstance, mode, and duration of the violation, as well as the involvement of a third party, as well as the overall and comprehensive factors that may have a significant impact on the share price, the burden of proof for such violation should also be determined by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, in a case where multiple persons jointly commit a crime of unfair trade such as market manipulation, profits from the crime refers to all the accomplices who participated in the crime, and it does not mean profits earned by each criminal who participated in the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7404, Feb. 24, 2011): Provided, that the term “gains from a violation” under the proviso of Article 443(1) and Article 443(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act means, in principle, profits gained from the violation, and profits gained from a third party who does not participate in the crime shall not be included therein (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do3180, Jul. 14, 201); however, where a representative, etc. of a corporation committed a violation under Article 443 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act with respect to the business of the corporation, such profits shall also be included in the profits gained by the corporation’s representative, etc. (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1615, Dec.16, 214.).

2) Determination

A) The prosecutor, as listed below, regards all 11,131,952,484 won as profits from the disposal of the shares held or purchased by the Defendants and accomplices and the shares converted from the exercise of a warranty during the market price manipulation period as the profits of the Defendants, and then deducts all 586,487,957 won, which is the loss incurred from the account used in the market price manipulation from the above amount, 10,545,464,527 won, as the unjust enrichment amount suffered by the Defendants and accomplices, and asserts 23).

[Attachment 2]

① Nonindicted 12,376,87,685 Defendant 12, Nonindicted 130,946, 765, 761, 990, 136 Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 133, 249, 576/249, 576/23, Nonindicted 13222, 649, 5722, 649, 647, 647, 97, 97, 164, 1448, 1341, 270, 259, 364, 259, 164, 257, 369, 164, 257, 369, 364, 257, 169, 364, 257, 97, 196, and 145, and 254, respectively.

Note 24) 403,933,677

B) Whether there is any reason to exclude the causal relationship with the market price manipulation act

We examine whether the causal relationship between the defendants' market manipulation act and the unjust enrichment acquired by the defendants can be excluded due to various types of protective articles related to the non-indicted 1 company.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by this court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, Nonindicted Co. 1’s investment in Nonindicted Co. 28 is likely to have a significant impact on Nonindicted Co. 1’s investment in Nonindicted Co. 1 on Apr. 30, 2012, which was announced on Apr. 26, 2012, as Nonindicted Co. 1’s investment did not immediately decline in the market price, and the article on ○○○○○ was commenced from Jan. 2012, but it did not affect the share price, and it was difficult to view that Nonindicted Co. 1’s investment in Nonindicted Co. 2 was likely to have a significant impact on Nonindicted Co. 1’s investment in the market price manipulation on Jun. 27, 2012, when Nonindicted Co. 1’s investment in Nonindicted Co. 2 had been reported on July 20, 207, when Nonindicted Co. 1’s investment in the market price manipulation.

C) The acquisition value of shares to be applied when calculating unjust enrichment by the Defendants

① First, prior to May 2, 2012, Nonindicted 3, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 5, the date of commencing the manipulation of market prices, are deemed to have been applied to the acquisition value to be applied when calculating the amount of unjust enrichment obtained from the sets exercised by Defendant 5.

Since the price of the Dwork event was determined at the time of the issuance of BW, and around April 30, 2012, Nonindicted Co. 1 appears to have reflected the expectation that the price would have been released from the category of investment caution. However, as seen earlier, Defendant 1 offered to Defendant 2 the unit price of shares that would have been released to Nonindicted Co. 1 by acquiring Nonindicted Co. 1 without compensation, and Defendant 1 would not be able to maintain the management right if shares were issued by the former management at approximately 32 million weeks because the unit price manipulation would not have been set at the time of the enforcement of the Dwork’s price manipulation, and it would have been likely that it would have been difficult for the Defendants to actively acquire the shares at the time of the enforcement of the Dwork’s price manipulation, and it would have been difficult for the Defendants to actively acquire the shares at the time of the enforcement of the Dwork’s price manipulation, and it would have been sufficiently anticipated that the shares would have been released from the time of the enforcement of the Dwork to Nonindicted Co. 2. 1.

(2) Next, regarding the acquisition value to be applied in calculating the amount of unjust enrichment obtained from the sale of shares held by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 during the period after the commencement of the market price manipulation act, and Defendant 5.

As seen earlier, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3: (a) disposed of the shares issued by using the set during the market price manipulation period when the share price increases within the market price manipulation period; and (b) Defendant 5, upon Defendant 1’s request, deposited 609,180 shares, which were the shares previously purchased at the time of purchase of shares, into the accounts in the name of Nonindicted Party 15, which were the 609,180 shares during the market price manipulation period; and (c) it seems to have been for the purpose of facilitating the disposal of the shares to the relationship in which Nonindicted Party 1 was in the position of directors at the time of purchase of shares; (d) in light of the fact that the aforementioned Defendants’ purpose of exercising the set or taking shares into another account from the beginning, was to obtain the difference between the share price raised or the share price at the time of the price manipulation and the share price at the time of the exercise or share price at the time of purchase of the shares. Therefore, it is reasonable to calculate the amount of unjust enrichment by applying the share price.

D) Determination on specific unjust enrichment

① Profit 1,376,877,685 won, as a result of the construction project exercised by Nonindicted 12 with Defendant 1’s invitation

However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that Nonindicted 12 participated in the manipulation of market prices as stated in paragraph (2) of the judgment of Defendant 1, etc., or exercised a warranty with dolusence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Non-Indicted 12 heard the condition that 50% of the profits from the unit price exercise should be distributed from Defendant 1 to Defendant 2, and paid part of the issued shares to Defendant 5. As such, as seen earlier, it was sold after being put into the account of Non-Indicted 13 which appears to be the co-offender of the market price manipulation and then returned 380,000 shares from Defendant 5 on December 2013. Accordingly, the profits from the above 263,90 shares and 380,00 shares are included in the amount of unjust enrichment from the market price manipulation stated in paragraph (2) above, and thus, the above profits from the above 263,900 shares and 380,000 shares are included in the aggregate amount of KRW 171,80,900, KRW 7089, KRW 2605, KRW 3005, KRW 36005, KRW 2095, KRW 3065,5000.

② At the invitation of Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 130, Nonindicted 131, and Nonindicted 132, profits from the sets used in the name of Nonindicted 1,761,90, and KRW 136.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is recognized that Nonindicted 13 was also aware that Nonindicted 3 et al. was at the price manipulation of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1. The profits earned from Nonindicted 13’s borrowed account is the profits earned by Nonindicted 3. Therefore, the above KRW 1,761,90,136 shall be included in the unjust enrichment amount of the Defendants in relation to Nonindicted 3.

③ At the expense of Defendant 2, Nonindicted 14 had been used by Nonindicted 133 and Nonindicted 134 in the name of Nonindicted 13,919,848.

However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that Nonindicted 14 was involved in the manipulation of market prices as stated in the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (2) of the same Article, or exercised the warranty with the awareness that the manipulation has been actually conducted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Defendant 2 agreed to divide profits into 5:5 and received investments from the unit event fund, and Nonindicted 14 agreed to distribute profits to Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 as well as Defendant 2, but did not sell the shares issued after the unit event to Defendant 2 at will without notifying Defendant 2 thereof, and did not distribute profits accrued therefrom to Defendant 2. Accordingly, it is reasonable to evaluate that Nonindicted 14 did not distribute profits accrued from the unit event differently from the initial agreement, and that 50% of the profits accrued from the unit event belongs to Defendant 2. Therefore, Defendant 2’s profits are included in the amount of unjust enrichment.

④ In total, KRW 1,731,250,195,00,00 for the profits from the warranty exercised by Defendant 5 in the name of Nonindicted 15 and the profits from the existing shares.

(a) First of all, as to profits from 1,00,000 shares converted from the Dwork on April 25, 2012, in the name of Nonindicted 15. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, the fact that the KRW 100,000 out of the KRW 50,000 that Defendant 5 loaned to Nonindicted Company 1 on January 13, 2012 is Nonindicted 15 (see, e.g., evidence No. 9 submitted by Defendant 5). However, according to the monetary loan agreement with Nonindicted Company 1, the fact that only Defendant 5 was the creditor, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 50,000 won was borrowed from Nonindicted 15 to lend KRW 50,000 to Nonindicted Company 1,50,000,000,000,000 won, which was paid to Defendant 150,000 won after the execution of the loan in the name of Nonindicted 1, 150,0000.

(b) Next, regarding profits derived from 609,180 shares, which were put into the account in the name of Nonindicted 15 on June 5, 2012. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, 609,180 shares, which were entered into the account in the name of Nonindicted 15 on June 5, 2012, are deemed to have been purchased by the Defendant at the request of Defendant 1, regardless of the initial market price manipulation, in view of the fact that the Defendant purchased the shares in the manner of securing the shares of friendship under Defendant 1’s request. However, it is reasonable to view this part as Defendant 5’s profits, since Defendant 5’s increase in the share price corresponding to the number of shares held during the period of the market price manipulation is also caused by the

(c) Finally, as to profits from the 776,397 shares converted from the exercise of a warranty on June 26, 2012 by Nonindicted 15. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it can be recognized that Defendant 5 sold the 9th BW set that Defendant 5 loaned KRW 500 million to Nonindicted Company 1 on January 13, 2012 to Nonindicted 15 on March 9, 2012 (see, e.g., evidence submitted by Defendant 5). The evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that Nonindicted 15 exercised a warranty with the dolussent or perceived perception of the manipulation of market facts stated in the criminal facts stated in the judgment of Defendant 5, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Nonindicted 15 exercised a warranty. Thus, it is difficult to deem that Nonindicted 15 had exercised a warranty on June 26, 2012.

(d)the remaining 1,327,316,518 won after deducting from 1,731,250,195 403,933,677 won shall be included in the amount of unjust enrichment by the Defendants.

⑤ At the attraction of Defendant 3, Nonindicted 16 made profits from the sets used in the name of Nonindicted Company 109 by Nonindicted Company 2,076,124,943

On the other hand, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that Nonindicted 16 exercised a warranty in the situation where Nonindicted 3 et al. had dolusence or awareness that the manipulation of market prices as stated in the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (2) as indicated in the judgment by Defendant 3 et al., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the total amount of profits from the warranty exercised by Nonindicted 16 cannot be deemed as included

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Defendant 3 stated in the investigative agency that “The amount of the soft event cost exercised in the name of Nonindicted Company 109 was all paid to Nonindicted 16. At the time, Defendant 5 stated that the distribution of earnings from the soft event was 5:5, but he agreed to pay 30% of profits with Defendant 3 and paid it to Nonindicted 16 so that he would be 30% of profits and paid it in the event of the soft event, Defendant 5 et al., Defendant 5 et al. al., and 260 million won after deducting taxes from Nonindicted 16, 160,000 won, which included the amount of 160,000 won from Defendant 2, 360% of profits of less than 36% of the above 306% profits (see evidence record 2647, e.g., Defendant 26., Defendant 36% of profits of less than 36% of the above 2036% profits.

6) At Defendant 1’s attraction, Nonindicted Company 2’s profits from the sets used in Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 6’s name 2,05,193,462

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the profits earned by converting the set used in the names of Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 6 shall be the profits of Nonindicted Company 2 acquired by Nonindicted Company 2 by collecting the funds from investors and by using the set. Since Nonindicted Company 2 was established and operated by Defendant 1 in order to generate profits from investors’ funds, the profits of Nonindicted Company 2 shall be the profits of Defendant 1. Therefore, the above 2,05, 193, and 462 shall be included in the amount of unjust enrichment by the Defendants.

7) At the invitation of Defendant 2, the profits from the sets exercised by Nonindicted 129 and Nonindicted 135 Company 1,795,112,643 won

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is reasonable to view that the non-indicted 129 was actually operated by the defendant 2, and that the defendant 2 provided part of the set to exercise the set in the name of the non-indicted 129 to the non-indicted 135 while borrowing from the non-indicted 135, and the non-indicted 135 was used by the non-indicted 135. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the set that the non-indicted 135 was used by the non-indicted 135 as the payment for borrowing the amount from the non-indicted 135 to the non-indicted 135 was provided in the name of the non-indicted 129 as well as the profits from the set used by the non-indicted 135 as the profits of the defendant 2. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the above 1,795,112,643 won was included in the amount of the unjust profits of the defendants.

8. Benefits 131,483,572 won from the warranty exercised by Nonindicted Company 136

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Nonindicted Co. 136 appears to have exercised the warranty held by the owner as the creditor of the previous BW of Nonindicted Co. 1. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that Nonindicted Co. 136 obtained profits from the market price by selling the converted shares by exercising the warranty held by the defendant and Nonindicted Co. 3 with knowledge that there was a public bid relation or an artificial manipulation with the Defendants or Nonindicted Co. 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, 131,483,572 won is not included in the amount of unjust enrichment obtained by the Defendants, which was used in the name of Nonindicted Company 136.

9 Conclusion

Therefore, the amount of unjust enrichment gained from the manipulation of market price stated in the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (2) of the Defendants’ holding is the total of KRW 7,407,592,973 [ = KRW 7,94,080,930 (= KRW 354,670,765 + KRW 1,761,90,136 + KRW 126,959,924 + KRW 1,327,327,316,518 + + KRW 622,837,482 + KRW 2,05,462 + KRW 1,795,112,643 + KRW 586,957].

E) Determination as to the Defendants’ additional assertion regarding unjust enrichment amount

① Defendant 1 asserts that the amount of unjust enrichment should be deducted from the amount of his own unjust enrichment, since he did not actually participate in the interests of the defendants and accomplices.

However, as seen earlier, in the event that multiple accomplices jointly commit an act of unfair trade, such as market price manipulation, profits arising from the crime refer to the profits acquired by all accomplices who participated in the crime. Thus, even if Defendant 1 did not specifically know whether other accomplices did not participate directly in the profit making by exercising their respective sets during the market price manipulation period or did not gain any profit therefrom, the profits arising from the crime shall be deemed as including all the profits acquired by other accomplices who are recognized as a public offering relationship. Thus, Defendant 1’s above assertion is rejected.

② Defendant 3 asserts that all of the purchase and event funds that Nonindicted 16 exercised by Nonindicted 16 were paid by Nonindicted 16, and that profits therefrom were only acquired by Nonindicted 16 and there was no distribution of profits. In light of the fact that Defendant 3 paid part of the profits from the set of Nonindicted 16, which was exercised in the name of Nonindicted 109, through Defendant 2, as seen earlier, it is difficult to believe the contents of the statement as it is, and as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the amount equivalent to the profits that Nonindicted 16 agreed to distribute to Defendant 3 regardless of whether Nonindicted 16 actually performed the distribution agreement with Defendant 3, is the profits that Defendant 3 acquired, and thus, Defendant 3’s assertion is not acceptable.

③ Defendant 5 asserted that the average selling price was KRW 1,323.6, which was unfavorable to Defendant 5, and that the amount of unjust enrichment was aggravated by calculating the amount of KRW 1,324,00. However, Defendant 5’s assertion that the sales price based on the calculation of unjust enrichment was calculated by adding up the actual selling price recorded in Nonindicted 15’s account and was not an amount calculated by multiplying the average selling price by the sales price (Evidence record 2943, 4112, 417 pages), and Defendant 5’s above assertion is rejected.

3. As to Defendant 1’s violation of the Capital Markets Act due to Defendant 1’s manipulation in 2013

A. Summary of the assertion

On April 2013, the Defendant received a report from Nonindicted 22 to the effect that “Nonindicted 3 demanded the bet of Nonindicted Company 1 through Defendant 2, the share price of Nonindicted Company 1 was lower than the exercise of bet and the Nonindicted Company 1’s operating funds also required.” In addition, Nonindicted 3’s share purchase of Nonindicted Company 1, which was the second shareholder of Nonindicted Company 1, did not either conspired to manipulate the price of Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 1, nor directed the manipulation of market prices. Furthermore, in fact, Nonindicted 1’s share purchase, which was the second shareholder of Nonindicted Company 1, led to the decline of share price due to the embezzlement of Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted 41, and at that time, Nonindicted 3’s share purchase did not affect Nonindicted Company 1’s share price.

B. Determination

On November 29, 2007, in light of the legal principles of the Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7471 Decided November 29, 2007, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court of this case, namely, ① around April 2013, the Defendant provided Nonindicted 3 with a set of money equivalent to 1860,00 won for the share price of Nonindicted Company 1 (see, e.g., evidence records 1610 pages) and Nonindicted 3’s exercise price of the set of money provided by the Defendant was 509 won or 640 won per share so that there was no dispute over Nonindicted Company 1’s share price manipulation, and ② the Defendant was aware that there was an increase in the share price of Nonindicted Company 1’s share price with new shares increase in order to obtain profits from the sale of the shares acquired by the Defendant, and ② the Defendant was aware that there was an increase in the share price increase in Nonindicted Company 1’s stock price with new shares increase in Korea before the issuance of new shares was made.

4. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by Defendant 1

A. Summary of the assertion

Around August 2012, when the Defendant acquired Nonindicted Company 1 on or around July 2011, the financial status of Nonindicted Company 1, including the reduction of its liabilities, the reduction of its sales volume, etc., and the purchase of shares of Nonindicted Company 2 by additionally raising funds, and normalization of media business, it is possible to sell the amount of 20 billion won, including the management premium, within one year, after sufficiently explaining these contents, the Defendant was given additional investment to the existing investors, and 4 billion won was invested by Nonindicted Company 35.4 billion won. At the time, Nonindicted Company 1 was in contact with the majority of investors who want to acquire the Nonindicted Company 1, but there was a possibility of actual sale, such as the acquisition of shares to acquire the shares for capital increase, but Nonindicted Company 41 disposed of the shares as collateral during the process of borrowing the shares for the purpose of raising the shares for capital increase, and Nonindicted Company 1 was not subject to the sale of the shares by the Korea Exchange for the purpose of 14th shareholder’s investment in breach of trust.

B. Relevant legal principles

The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction before and after the crime unless the defendant confessions (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008).

C. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant, even if receiving KRW 4 billion from the victim, did not have the ability to repay the funds without selling Nonindicted Company 1 in light of the financial situation of Nonindicted Company 2. In light of the situation of Nonindicted Company 1 at that time, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant, without notifying the victim of such circumstances, knew or could have known that the sale of Nonindicted Company 1 was objectively impossible within one year, by receiving KRW 4 billion from the victim.

A) The arrival of maturity period for existing investors of Nonindicted Co. 2

① Around January 201, the Defendant received an investment of KRW 5 billion from 18 investors, including the victim, and invested KRW 5 billion in the name of Nonindicted Company 1 B in the name of Nonindicted Company 2. The initial repayment date for the said investors was around January 2012, 201. However, the Defendant repaid to some investors who wish to receive a refund on the agreed repayment date the amount of money (including principal KRW 960,000,000,000, including interest, KRW 960,000,000,000), and extended the repayment date for the remaining investors who wish to receive a refund of the money to KRW 4.1 billion. The Defendant, on or around July 8, 2012, extended the repayment date for the remaining investors from KRW 4.1 billion to KRW 4,100,000,000 to KRW 35,50,000,000 among the investors, referring to the evidence of Nonindicted Company 27 and KRW 929,09.

② In addition, the Defendant acquired Nonindicted Company 1 on July 201, and received an investment of KRW 5 billion from Nonindicted 43, KRW 1 billion from Nonindicted 29, KRW 1 billion from Nonindicted 27, and KRW 800 million from Nonindicted 27. On July 2012, the due date for the said investment has arrived even after July 2012. The Defendant extended the due date for the repayment by means of re-investment of KRW 1 billion from Nonindicted 29 and KRW 800 million from Nonindicted 27, but at the time, the Defendant had to pay KRW 5 billion from Nonindicted 43 at the time (Evidence record 147-150 pages).

③ Meanwhile, the Defendant agreed to substitute KRW 3 billion out of KRW 3,031,686,00, which was paid from Nonindicted 46 to January 25, 2012 from October 14, 2010, with the purchase price for Nonindicted 46’s shares in Nonindicted Company 1 in the name of Nonindicted 47 and Nonindicted 48 on July 16, 2012 (see, e.g., evidence records 445-449).

④ As such, the Defendant was in a situation where the funds invested in Nonindicted Company 1 are not sufficiently collected, such as extending the repayment deadline for the existing investors in Nonindicted Company 2’s investment funds, repaying them in the manner of re-investment, or repaying them to Nonindicted Company 1’s stocks. As recognized by the Defendant himself, as long as Nonindicted Company 1 is not sold, it was a situation in which the Defendant is required to receive new investments in order to redeem the funds of the victim.

B) Possibility of selling 20 billion won of Nonindicted Company 1

① From April 2012 to June 2012, Nonindicted Co. 1 had a bad financial standing, Nonindicted Co. 1 had a total of approximately KRW 6.75 billion in total and KRW 270 million in total, except for KRW 27 billion in total. Of the payment for the construction event, KRW 2 billion in total was invested in Nonindicted Co. 28, and approximately KRW 3.9 billion in total and KRW 5 billion in B owned by Nonindicted Co. 2, which were used to repay KRW 1 billion in total.

② Around August 2, 2012, Defendant 5, at the end of the Defendant, had almost no sales due to a new project that was being promoted at the time, such as the resignation of the director of Nonindicted Company 1 and the failure to conduct the business related to Nonindicted Company 28 (see, e.g., evidence 74 and 76 submitted by Defendant 1).

③ Nonindicted 29 was merely a review of Nonindicted Company 1, which was proposed from the Defendant to engage in the merger with Nonindicted Company 29, and did not seem to have actively promoted the merger with Nonindicted Company 1 (i.e., △ Telecom, which came to be a self-listed), and (ii) the Defendant negotiated or reviewed the sale of Nonindicted Company 1, as well as the Defendant’s companies that negotiated or reviewed the sale of Nonindicted Company 1.

④ The determination that investors, such as Nonindicted 29 and Nonindicted 27, could be sold more than 20 billion won by Nonindicted Company 1 seems to have been merely based on the remainder of the judgment that believed that the Defendant’s talk was not based on the objective materials at that time, but rather on the other hand.

⑤ In light of the above financial status of Nonindicted Company 1, it seems practically difficult to sell Nonindicted Company 1 at the price above 20 billion won offered by the Defendant, even though it was considered that Nonindicted Company 1 was a press organization.

C) Whether the victim was notified of the financial status of Nonindicted Company 1

① Nonindicted 29, 27, and 12 who invested money at a similar time as the victim had paid the money after hearing Nonindicted Company 1’s financial position, such as that all Nonindicted 29, 27 and 12 must adjust their existing debts from the Defendant. However, Nonindicted 29, 27, and 12 did not receive large amount of funds invested in Nonindicted Company 1 upon the Defendant’s recommendation, or invested in the work of Nonindicted Company 1 (at that time, Nonindicted 29 had invested KRW 1 billion in July 26, 201, and Nonindicted 27 had an additional explanation of KRW 350 million in the remainder of KRW 50 million in the loans of December 29, 201 and KRW 1150,000 in the loans of Nonindicted Company 1,50 million in the loans of Nonindicted Company 2 to Nonindicted Company 1, 200,000,000 won in the loans of KRW 1,120,000,000 in the previous financial position.

② Nonindicted 45, the victim’s son, was a director of Nonindicted Company 1, and was close to Nonindicted 43, which was an existing investor. However, Nonindicted 43, at that time, was in the position to receive reimbursement of KRW 5 billion invested in Nonindicted Company 2 at that time, said Nonindicted 45 was unable to speak about Nonindicted 2’s obligations, etc. when he asked the Defendant before he pays KRW 4 billion. The time when the victim’s son worked as a director of Nonindicted Company 1 was paid KRW 4 billion to the victim. As long as the Defendant was not notified, Nonindicted 45 appears to have failed to know the financial status of Nonindicted Company 1, the actual possibility of sale, and the estimated amount of sale.

1. Defendant 1

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to June 22 and fines of up to 50,000 won for up to 22,222,78,919 won;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria:

1) Basic crime: Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act in its holding;

[Determination of Type] Securities and Financial Crimes

[Special Person] Where the Criminal Code is very poor;

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Aggravation, 7-1 years of imprisonment

2. Competitive Crimes: Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in the holding;

[Determination of Punishment] General Fraud> Type 3 (at least 500 million won, but less than 5 billion won)

[Special Mitigation] In the case of an intentional act of deception, or where the degree of deception is weak, the case where the penalty is not imposed or the damage is recovered in a considerable part.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Special Mitigation Area, 9-4 years of imprisonment

3) The scope of final sentence according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for 7 to 13 years;

(c) Determination of sentence;

The Defendant, while recognizing the existence of the above Defendants and Nonindicted 3’s market manipulation, paid the price manipulation fund, facilitates the price manipulation, and further, actively used the opportunity to increase the price due to the price manipulation by exercising the set of Nonindicted Company 1’s sets owned by Nonindicted Company 2, thereby gaining profits equivalent to the difference. Furthermore, the Defendant did not follow the price manipulation in 2012, but made a price manipulation for the purpose of gaining the difference by exercising the set owned by Nonindicted Company 2 in 2013. Furthermore, in light of the situation at the time, the Defendant, by deceiving the Defendant, even though he did not have the ability to repay by selling Nonindicted Company 1, and by deceiving him, acquired a large amount of money of KRW 4 billion from the victim. Therefore, the Defendant’s sentence is very heavy.

However, the defendant collected funds from investors and invested KRW 5 billion in the name of the non-indicted 1 company B in the name of the non-indicted 2 company, but invested KRW 5 billion in the non-indicted 1 company due to the financial deterioration of the non-indicted 1 company, and thereafter, he acquired the non-indicted 1 company in the situation where it is impossible to recover the amount of KRW 5 billion in the non-indicted 1 company. After that, the defendant 2, who managed the non-indicted 1 company and was introduced through the defendant 5, was aware of the method of securing the funds of the non-indicted 1 company by using the set issued by the former management in the non-indicted 1 company, and it seems that he participated in the manipulation in the 2012 company. The profits from the set used in the name of the non-indicted 2 company, which the defendant was finally used for the purpose of redemption to investors, and it seems that there is little profits acquired by the defendant individually. In the case of the fraud crime, the victim did not thoroughly confirm the financial structure of the non-indicted 1 company or the business progress, and possibility of sale.

2. Defendant 2

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to two years from six months to 20 years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria: Non-application of the sentencing criteria because they are concurrent crimes in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act

(c) Determination of sentence;

Although the Defendant, who worked as a prosecutor and opened as a lawyer, should live in compliance with the law more than others, the Defendant led to the manipulation of the year 2009 by using his position and legal knowledge to provide consulting on M&A among the enterprises. Furthermore, the Defendant was also led to the manipulation of the year 2012 by knowing that Defendant 1, who acquired Nonindicted Company 1, has been in possession of the sets issued by the former management, with the intention to obtain profits equivalent to the profits from the market price profits by using the sets, and by using the sets, he was provided with the sets from Defendant 1, and by inducing Nonindicted 3, etc., who is the market price manipulation force. Furthermore, the nature of the crimes is very good. Moreover, the Defendant committed each of the crimes in this case even if he had the history of punishment for the same kind of crime. Moreover, the amount of unjust enrichment gained by the manipulation of the year 2012 is not certain. Therefore, the Defendant’s sentence of the penalty is inevitable.

However, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that each crime of this case and each crime of this case for which judgment has become final and conclusive in relation to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the fact that equity should be taken into account in the case where judgment has been rendered at the same time in relation to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and other circumstances shown in the records and arguments, such as the age

3. Defendant 3

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to ten years, and fine of 50,000 to 22,222,778,919;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Type] Securities and Financial Crimes

[Special Person] Where the Criminal Code is very poor;

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Aggravation, 7-1 years of imprisonment

(c) Determination of sentence;

The Defendant was involved in the price manipulation in 2009, including submission of orders for purchase of market price manipulation by using the accounts, etc. from the principal or borrowed account, and the Defendant played an important role in increasing the share price by introducing Defendant 1 to Defendant 1 even at the time of the price manipulation in 2012, introducing Nonindicted Company 1 to Defendant 4, who operates the Securities Caf, and allowing its members to recommend the purchase of Nonindicted Company 1’s shares, and the Defendant’s profits acquired by attracting unit investors during the price manipulation period are also disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, it is favorable to the defendant that the defendant has no particular criminal record in addition to those who have been punished three times by a fine due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act.

Other circumstances shown in the records and pleadings, such as the age, character and conduct, health status, intelligence and environment, etc. of the accused, shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following circumstances.

4. Defendant 4

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria: Non-application of the sentencing criteria because they are concurrent crimes in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act

(c) Determination of sentence;

The Defendant, taking advantage of the position of securities broadcasting list, applied the manipulation by using its own fee-charging members, and thereby, seems to have caused damage to the Ka PP members. Furthermore, the Defendant is not liable for the crime, such as the fact that the Defendant purchased shares in a borrowed-name account prior to recommending the purchase of the shares to its members and then acquired profits from the purchase of the shares to its members prior to the price drop. In addition, the Defendant has committed an act of manipulation of market prices while working for the Internet pay securities broadcasting business in the previous year, and in the manipulation of market price in 2012, the Defendant seems to have contributed significantly to the realization of unjust enrichment by the Defendant and the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s sentence is inevitable, given that there was a sudden increase in the share price after the Defendant recommended the purchase of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1.

However, in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the crime in this case and the crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the fact that it is assumed that the defendant was distributed sets from the defendant or was not paid the price for manipulation of market prices, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, health conditions, intelligence and environment, etc.

5. Defendant 5

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: One month to ten years of imprisonment;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Type] Securities and Financial Crimes

[Special Person] Where the Criminal Code is very poor;

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Aggravation, 7-1 years of imprisonment

(c) Determination of sentence;

In order to introduce Defendant 1 to Defendant 2, and to raise funds to invest in Nonindicted Company 28’s business, the Defendant did not seem to have merely performed Defendant 1’s unilateral instructions, such as: (a) the Defendant did not seem to have been an employee who merely performed the Defendant’s unilateral instructions; and (b) the Defendant did not have much profits from exercising a warranty and selling the shares held by him in the status of his own share price support.

On the other hand, the defendant was punished once by a fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and there is no particular criminal conviction, which is favorable to the defendant.

Other circumstances shown in the records and pleadings, such as the age, character and conduct, health status, intelligence and environment, etc. of the accused, shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following circumstances.

1. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 acquired unjust enrichment of KRW 10,545,464,527, based on the market price manipulation stated in the facts constituting the crime of paragraph 2 of the judgment.

2. Determination

On the other hand, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the profits earned by the above Defendants and accomplices were more than 7,407,592,973 won and more than 10,545,464,527 won and not more than 10,567 won and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. However, as long as the court found the above Defendants guilty of violating the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to the manipulation of market price as stated in the facts charged under paragraph (2) of the same Article

Judges in charge of the in-depth interference (Presiding Justice)

1) The facts charged were appropriately revised to the extent that it does not interfere with the Defendants’ exercise of their defense rights.

(2) Although the facts charged indicate that “Defendant 2 would obtain profit from the market price.” However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it can be acknowledged that Defendant 2, Nonindicted 7, and Defendant 3 conspired in consecutive order. Even if it is recognized as such, it is deemed that there is no risk of actual disadvantage to Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s exercise of defense right. Thus, it shall be corrected ex officio without going through the amendment procedure of indictment.

Note 3) Although the facts charged are indicated as “1,250 won,” it is obvious that it is a clerical error of “1,150 won,” it is corrected ex officio.

Note 4) Although the facts charged are indicated as “3,256 times,” it is apparent that it is a clerical error in the “3,300 times,” it is corrected ex officio (=44 times + 3,033 times + 285 + 88 times + 150 times).

Note 5) As of March 31, 2012, the number of unredeemed BW number of Non-Indicted 1 Company 32,768,115 was 32,768,115

Note 6) In the facts charged, only the number of stocks for which the most and most general sales contract was concluded is stated, but the number of stocks for which the highest and general sales order was issued is corrected ex officio.

Note 7) Although the facts charged are stated as “2,265 times,” it is obvious that it is a clerical error of “2,262 times,” it is corrected ex officio.

Note 8) Although the facts charged are indicated as “8,034 times,” it is apparent that it is a clerical error in the “7,962 times,” it is corrected ex officio (i.e., 569 times + 4,925 times + 2,262 + 65 times + 141 times).

9) Although the facts charged are stated as “14,60,270 shares,” it is apparent in the calculation that it is a clerical error in the “15,189,030 shares,” it is correct ex officio (i.e., 1,284,768 shares + 7,612,339 shares + 3,636,024 shares + 1,636,024 shares + 1,173,600 shares + 1,482,29 shares).

The facts charged are stated that the Defendants acquired unjust enrichment from the manipulation of market prices. However, the initial prosecutor did not specify the amount of unjust enrichment in the case of Defendants 3, 4, and 5 and charged with the charge under Article 443(1) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013) but did not correct the amount of unjust enrichment in the case of Defendants 1 and 2 who charged with the charge at a rate under Article 443(2)2 of the same Act, following the combination with the case of violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act by Defendants 3, 4, and 5, which stated that the amount of unjust enrichment was acquired from Defendants 3, 4, and 5 as one of the facts charged by the Defendants (the prosecutor did not add the applicable provisions to Defendants 3, 4, and 5 at the time of the amendment of the Act as of August 24, 2015), and in the case of Defendants 3, 4, and 5.

Note 11) Although the facts charged are indicated as “as of April 2012.” However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is evident that this is a clerical error in the “as of April 2013,” and thus, ex officio correction is made.

Note 12) For the same purpose as each Note 12)

Note 13) In the facts charged, only the number of stocks for which the most recent contract for the sale and purchase was entered, but the number of stocks for which the most recent contract for the sale and purchase was entered shall be corrected ex officio.

Note 14) Nonindicted 43 billion won, Nonindicted 29 billion won, Nonindicted 29 billion won, Nonindicted 27.8 billion won, Nonindicted 2’s existing funds KRW 200 million, and the victim Nonindicted 35 was recommended to make an investment in this context, but rejected.

Note 15) Nonindicted 4.6 billion won (this money is not purely borrowed with respect to Nonindicted Company 1, but the funds borrowed by Nonindicted Company 2 between October 14, 2010 and January 25, 2012) and Nonindicted Company 1.8 billion won.

The facts charged are indicated as KRW 4 billion (Nonindicted 29 billion, KRW 27 billion, and KRW 1 billion, respectively). However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the fact that Defendant 1 actually borrowed money at the time is KRW 5 billion (Nonindicted 29, KRW 2 billion, KRW 12 billion, and KRW 2.7 billion) can be acknowledged, and even if recognized as above, it does not seem that Defendant 1’s exercise of the defense right would be substantially disadvantaged. Thus, the facts charged shall be corrected ex officio without going through the amendment procedure to the indictment.

Note 17) The facts charged are as follows: “Non-Indicted 27: (a) the total amount of investors shall be KRW BW KRW 50 million; (b) KRW 2.3 billion as of July 201; or (c) KRW 3 billion as of July 2012. Non-Indicted 12 shall have a total of KRW 3 billion as of KRW 3 billion; and (b) Non-Indicted 29 shall have a total of KRW 4.7 billion as of January 8, 2012; and (c) Non-Indicted 29 shall have a total of KRW 3 billion as of KRW 2.5 billion as of KRW 5 billion as of January 27, 201; and (d) Non-Indicted 29 shall have an additional amount of KRW 3 billion as of KRW 1.5 billion as of KRW 2 billion as of July 201; and (d) shall have an additional amount of KRW 1.5 billion as of KRW 3 billion as of KRW 200,000.

Note 18) The Defendant asserts that he purchased shares with borrowed money and extended shares, but the amount equivalent to KRW 1.9778 million of the shares secured through the exercise of preemptive rights is not only KRW 1.1 billion of the amount extended by the Defendant’s share in the use of borrowed money by the investors, including Nonindicted 27, etc.

19) The Defendant said that the management rights premium of KRW 20 billion can be received from investors, but in fact, the Defendant expected to sell all the shares and management rights premium of KRW 20 billion. However, this is limited to the Defendant’s desired amount, and the actual sales negotiation took place on the line of KRW 100-15 billion. However, the Defendant’s loans related to Nonindicted Co. 1’s acquisition of the company amounting to KRW 17.4 billion in total.

Note 20) Method of investing Nonindicted Company 1 in Nonindicted Company 107 as funds paid by Nonindicted Company 2 in acquiring Nonindicted Company 1 BW

Note 21) Nonindicted 43 billion won (at that time, Defendant 1 provided Nonindicted 43 with Nonindicted 2’s shares 2,19,772 shares of Nonindicted Company 1 in possession of Nonindicted Company 2 as collateral), Nonindicted 29 billion won, and Nonindicted 2.8 billion won, etc.

Note 22) Defendant 2 acquired 110 million shares in total by taking over 10 million shares as the first unit between the first unit of takeover and the first unit of takeover.

23) However, the prosecutor charged Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 under Article 443(1) of the former Capital Markets Act without specifying the amount of unjust enrichment obtained through the manipulation of market price in 2012. However, the above defendants' profits obtained through the manipulation of market prices also include the amount of unjust enrichment of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, who are the accomplices, and seek a surcharge on the basis thereof. The criminal proceeds derived from the criminal acts under Articles 2 subparag. 1 and 2(a), 8(1)1, and 10(1) of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment provided for in Article 443(1) proviso and (2) of the former Capital Markets Act, which are the property subject to confiscation or collection, also refer to the "profit obtained from the violation" under Article 443(1) proviso and (2) of the former Capital Markets Act, i.e., the profits arising from the violation and causation arising from the violation (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1374, Jul. 9, 209).

Note 24) An amount obtained by deducting the amount of KRW 49,99,668 from the amount of KRW 903,93,345 of the sale price of KRW 776,397 from the amount of KRW 903,93,345 (it is difficult to calculate the fee and transaction tax corresponding to such money, and it is difficult to deduct the fee and transaction tax in favor of

Note 25) To deduct the entire fees of Nonindicted 12 from Defendant 1’s favor. The same applies to transaction tax.

Note 26) Evidence records 4122~4123 see

Note 27) [Attachment 1] The sum of the remaining event amounts, except for the amount of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000 for the loan extended by Defendant 5

Note 28) Unjust Enrichments (11,131,952,484 Won) relating to the Dwork event + Unjust Enrichments (-586,487,957 Won) from the suspected account group