The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Defendant of the Prosecutor.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The misunderstanding that there was a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act relating to the primary unfair trading and the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act”) was offered on August 18, 2010, the Defendant acquired the shares and the right of management of AA (hereinafter “AA”) as the proposal of the Z, and was involved in the process of distributing and publicly announcing false report materials by May 201 at the request of the Z, while taking charge of the duties of AA’s IR by May 201.

According to the Z or the direction of the Z, the CF involved in the Z business.

The unjust gains accrued from the accounts in the AJ’s name and the accounts in the name of AK (hereinafter “AK”), a corporation (formerly, HX, a corporation HY, and hereinafter referred to as “AK”), which was used by the Z, have been acquired by the Z, and the Defendant has not acquired any profits.

The defendant did not recognize the fact that AA was suffering from shares in each of the above accounts, and it was not possible to at all anticipate that Z would take unfair benefits due to a rise in the market price of the shares.

The Defendant has not conspired to commit an offense in violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Market Act”) due to Z and the primary unfair trading.

B) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of the amount of benefit per unit and applying it to the calculation of the virtual profit deemed to have been obtained by the Z to the maximum amount of profit for the Defendant. However, assuming that the Z actually failed to obtain, making the profit as an element of the composition of an aggravated crime is contrary to the legal doctrine on the profit derived from the violation

Since the Defendant did not fully know the benefits acquired from the Z and did not share it, it is unreasonable to impose liability on the Defendant for the investment loss of the Z (the loss occurred due to the decline in the price at the beginning of unfair trading compared to the actual purchase price).

2) Whether the media reports by DRs violate the Capital Market Act relating to the second unfair trading is false (investment in kel mine).