The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of 10 months and fines of 25 million won, Defendant B imprisonment with prison labor of 8 months and fines of 1.0 million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the economic situation of the defendant A is not good, that the defendant was not high in the company, that the defendant was the first offender, etc., the punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of suspended execution in October, and fine 45 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that Defendant B confessions and reflects, the amount of benefits acquired by the principal is almost little, the amount of return to society is living, and the first offender, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended execution in August, and fine 10 million won) is too unreasonable.

(c)

In light of the fact that the prosecutor's defendants acquired unjust benefits by using undisclosed information or acquired it to other persons to disrupt the order of the capital market, the amount of unjust benefits is considerable, and the defendant A pretended to acquire criminal proceeds through another person's account, etc., the punishment of the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. We also examine Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s wrongful assertion of sentencing.

First of all, "the profit or loss that has been gained or avoided by a violation under Article 443 (1) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 14817, Apr. 18, 2017)" means the profit or loss that the violator acquired or avoided by such violation, so it is reasonable to calculate it by each violation.

B. In a case where multiple persons jointly commit an unfair trade, such as market price control, profits from the crime refer to the profits acquired by all accomplices who have participated in the crime, and does not refer to the profits earned by each criminal who has participated in the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7404, Feb. 24, 201). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, in the instant case where each of the use of undisclosed information was indicted as a substantive concurrent criminal, the lower limit of fines for Defendant A’s fine amount is reduced by reducing small quantities (see Supreme Court Decision 23,706,624, Feb. 24, 201).