All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal on whether the Defendant bears the obligation of the suitability principle as a financial investment business entity

A. Article 46(3) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) provides that “a financial investment business entity shall not make an investment recommendation deemed unsuitable for an ordinary investor in light of the investor’s investment purpose, status of property, experience in investment, etc. when recommending an ordinary investor to make an investment.” Article 47(1) of the same Act provides that “a financial investment business entity shall explain to an ordinary investor the details of the financial investment instrument, the risks associated with the investment, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree so that the ordinary investor can understand such matters.” Article 47(3) of the same Act provides that “a financial investment business entity shall not make a false or distorted explanation of any fact that may seriously affect investors’ reasonable investment decision or the value of the relevant financial investment instrument (hereinafter “material fact”) in making an explanation under paragraph (1) (hereinafter “investment recommendation”) or omit an explanation of any material fact by offering a conclusive judgment on an uncertain matter, or by misleading any information that might mislead an investor to believe,” and Article 9(4) of the same Act provides that “Investment recommendation” means a trust contract or investment trust contract.

In order to protect investors who lack expertise and information compared with financial investment business entities, the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act has a financial investment business entity.