The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following facts, the summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) an investor who seeks a strategic method (i.e., “S. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s.

The Defendants provided at the instant speed-related services refer to the services, such as (i) providing the I’s exclusive server to M&N (hereinafter “the instant scisf”), allowing the scisf to put in the I’s internal server the ELW algorithm trading program; (ii) processing orders by the I’s body method; and (iii) providing non-processed market information.

Although Article 178(1)1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”), the lower court determined that the instant speed-related service cannot be deemed to fall under “illegal means, plans, or tricks” as prescribed by the said provision, and that no evidence exists to acknowledge it, and thereby acquitted the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

First, since California does not actually lose or are likely to lose an opportunity for trading by trading with the instant speed-related services provided by the Defendants by using the instant speed-related services provided by the Defendants, it is likely that the investment profits of Californiaers using the instant speed-related services will eventually be connected to ordinary investors’ damages.

Second, the defendants intentionally dealt with the specific scoos by the speed-related services without any reasonable reason in preference to other customers' orders will conflict with the principle of trust and good faith.