The meaning of public offering of securities subject to reporting to the Financial Supervisory Commission under Article 8 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 2(3) and 8(1) of the Securities and Exchange Act and Article 2-4(1), (3), and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act, in offering of securities, only when the number of persons who are solicited to acquire securities newly issued is 50 or more, the subscription to acquire securities constitutes a public offering of securities under Article 2-4(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act, which is subject to the regulation of the Securities and Exchange Act, is subject to the obligation to report to the Financial Supervisory Commission in offering securities, and if the subscription falls short thereof, the obligation to report is not required.

Articles 2(3) and 8(1) of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 209 subparag. 1 (current deletion) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 6423, Mar. 28, 2001); Article 2-4(1), (3), and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 2002No2645 delivered on January 17, 2003

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 209 subparagraph 1 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 6423 of March 28, 2001) and Article 8 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act, where the total amount of public offering of new or outstanding securities exceeds the amount prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, a person who violates the provisions of Article 2 (3) of the Securities and Exchange Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won, and a person who violates the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 2-4 (1), (3) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act shall be punished by not less than 50 persons who are solicited to make an offer to acquire new or outstanding securities under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree and Article 8 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act shall be punished by soliciting an issuer to acquire or sell the securities, or by inducing an issuer to make an offer to purchase or sell them (hereinafter referred to as the "public offering of new or outstanding securities") within the same type of securities concerned.

Therefore, in full view of these provisions, only when the number of persons who are solicited to acquire new securities through the method of Article 2-4(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act is 50 or more, it constitutes a "public offering of new securities" under Article 2(3) of the Securities and Exchange Act, which is subject to the regulation of the Securities and Exchange Act, and is subject to reporting to the Financial Supervisory Commission in the offering of new securities, and if it falls short thereof, it shall not be subject to such reporting obligation.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the facts charged of the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of this case where the defendant, when the public offering price of securities exceeds one billion won, submitted a report to the Financial Supervisory Commission and issued the amount equivalent to 1.4 billion won of old mining corporation stock certificates at the store in Seoul (hereinafter referred to as Seoul) on June 2000, although he did not accept the report or issue the public offering of new securities, on the premise of the above legal principles, on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that there is no evidence to prove that there is more than 50 won of the person who was recommended by the defendant to acquire the stock certificates issued new 1.4 billion won from the defendant before and after June 200, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove that the above 1.4 billion won is more than 50 won. In light of the records, the court below's fact finding and

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)