The judgment below

All parts of the defendant A, excluding the acquittal portion of the defendant A, shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment) against Defendant A (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s defense counsel asserted that the facts were erroneous and erroneous as to the violation of the Act on the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets and Capital Markets (hereinafter “Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act”) due to market price manipulation in the statement of appeal, and that there was a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”). However, the Defendant and his defense counsel withdrawn all of the allegations of misunderstanding of the above facts or misapprehension of the legal principles on the fourth trial date ( September 1, 2017) and maintained only the unfair argument for sentencing on

(Unlawful Sentencing) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C1) The Defendant alleged the denial of a conspiracy relation by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) did not have any discussion about the market price control over the share price A, B, and U (hereinafter “U”), and there was no fact that he participated in the market price control.

The Defendant was unaware of the fact that he held U shares through the most recent payment by A and B, and that he was unaware of his management status at the time of U.S.

In addition, the defendant was in possession of

U shares are not owned to the extent that they can operate the market price in or out of about 5%.

Nevertheless, the court below conspiredd with the defendant for the market price A, B, and the market price of this case consecutively and implicitly.

The decision of the person has committed a misunderstanding of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles as to a common principal offender.

B) According to the analysis of the substance and form of an individual transaction, U.S. transaction with the Defendant’s assertion of intention to control the market price and the denial of purpose, it seems to be for the sake of market price marginal profit, and cannot be deemed to have been done for the purpose of controlling the market price.

The purchase and sale of shares of U between the account managed by the defendant and the account managed by the defendant A and B is executed in a large quantity.