All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and additional collection) of the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. The instant case pertains to a case involving: (a) the F-listed director and the major shareholder G’s request, where the lower limit of the shares offered as security (hereinafter “F”) is about KRW 500,000 shares out of sale quantity; (b) the Defendants conspired with H, etc. known as the high number of so-called “low pool”; and (c) the Defendants purchased the F-stocks within a short time in collusion with H, etc. known as the high number of so-called “low pool”; (d) the lower limit of the F-listed shares was reduced in sales order; and (e) the share price manipulation, which

The Defendants led to the instant crime. However, the Defendants do not stay in the introduction of H in charge of the actual share price manipulation to G, and it cannot be deemed that the degree of participation in the instant crime is small, such as regulating the remuneration rate for the price manipulation and confirming whether H were implemented. The so-called “undertake” means: (a) the influence of the share price manipulation to attract ordinary investors who are taking advantage of the deliberation of the share price, etc. while the lower limit was so small that the share price manipulation was less than a certain portion of the quantity sold through mass purchase; and (b) in the instant case, the Defendants were able to attract the purchase of congested shares by ordinary investors who take advantage of the deliberation of the share price, etc.; and (c) even in the instant case, the lower limit was 2.5 million share price manipulation after April 25, 2013 in which H was taking account of the motive and circumstances leading up to the instant crime, including the following: (a) the Defendant Company A’s suspension of execution, and the Defendant B’s previous conviction and the same type of fine, the motive and circumstances leading leading up to the instant punishment.