All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty in the judgment of the court below) ① The scale of concluding a supply contract with G and Samsung D&P does not differ from the ordinarily concluded contract scale prior to G, and there was no specific public announcement on June 3, 2013 at the highest price during the market price operation period. Thus, it cannot be deemed that part of G’s share price increase during the market price operation period of the instant case was due to a change unrelated to the Defendant.

(2) In cases of operating market prices for the purpose of trading marginal profits, the rise of market prices by artificially manipulating the market prices for the purpose of inflow of purchase taxes, thereby having the largest impact on the operation of market prices by an order for purchasing high prices, etc. during the period from March 28, 2013 to July 30, 2013.

On June 11, 2013, (the record of KRW 3,205, the G highest shareholder) should be viewed as the completion date of the market price.

After that, as G’s share price continuously drop in the situation where sale tax advantages, the defendant submitted an order for abnormal trading, such as an order for high-priced purchase and an order for involvement in the closing price, etc., and sold and disposed of the shares held in general, the period from June 12, 2013 to July 30, 2013 cannot be included in the market price operation period of the defendant.

③ Therefore, even though the Defendant was 914,797,527 won, the lower court did not regard the completion date of the instant market price as June 11, 2013, and included the share price increase by the factors unrelated to the Defendant’s act of operating the market price.

In light of the fact that the defendant found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged that the amount of unjust profits was KRW 914,797,527, the defendant committed an error of misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended sentence) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. Defendant: The punishment of the lower court’s unfair judgment for sentencing (one year and two months), and the suspension of execution.