The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B and D, and the part concerning the dismissal of prosecution against Defendant C, excluding the remainder.

1. Since the prosecutor’s dismissal of the prosecution against Defendant C in the judgment of the court below (the part concerning U and V of the charges of violating the Labor Standards Act) was not appealed, the part concerning the dismissal of the prosecution against Defendant C was separated and confirmed as it is, the part concerning the above dismissal of the prosecution was excluded from the scope of

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C, D1) Defendant C, D’s joint fact misunderstanding or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, or the misunderstanding of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Market Act”) is abbreviationd.

Defendant C continues to sell its shares in order to raise operating funds of AA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”), among violations. In light of the substance and purpose of the transaction, there is no risk of infringing investors’ interests and impairing sound trade order. Thus, Defendant C and D’s act of selling shares does not constitute an investment trading business under the Capital Market Act, and there is no evidence as to the facts that Defendant C and D acted as a broker for the purchase of shares and conducted continuous and repeated brokerage for profit.

B) Among the violation of the Capital Market Act, the window dressing accounts against A, such as the sale and purchase of securities, etc. due to the use of the said fraternity, among the violation of the Capital Market Act, are directed by Defendant B for a financial institution loan on or around 2007. Thus, it cannot be deemed as a deception on the stock transaction of this case from around 2009. Defendant C and D did not reveal any fact that Defendant B or Defendant C directly or indirectly presented the window dressing accounting data to the party to a contract for the purchase and sale of stocks, or used them as a deceptive scheme, and there is no evidence as to the fact that Defendant C and D spreads a rumor on the financial status of A or used them

In addition, among the facts charged in this part, the crime list 3-1 of the judgment of the court below, which corresponds to the part that deceivings a person without the intent and ability to redeem shares at two times after the three years of the facts charged.