The judgment below

The guilty portion and the market price of December 20, 2010 to December 27, 2010 are due to the market price.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence of misunderstanding the facts, the court below found the defendant guilty of aiding and abetting the market price of five times in collusion with E, U, etc. for shares of Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), but the court below found the defendant guilty only for aiding and abetting the market price of 1, 2, and 3 times.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is unreasonable because it is excessively unfluent compared to the extent of the Defendant’s responsibility, taking into account the fact that the criminal defendant was led to the commission of the crime, and the gains obtained are not significant, and the denial of the crime does not constitute a serious reflection.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was to maintain the collateral value, which is a condition for loans secured by 40.86% of the shares of the instant company in the name of CN, offered as a collateral to the Solomon Savings Bank in the process of acquiring the shares of the instant company with E, U, etc., and to realize the market price profits through the sale of the shares of the instant company by E and U.

After that, the Defendant conspired with E, U, etc. on January 20, 2010 to April 14, 2010 (the first market price was 25,953,721,943 won), from May 18, 2010 to June 16, 2010 (the second market price was 2,785,88,06 won), from July 19, 2010 to August 5, 2010 (the third market price was 5,981,636,096 won), and the Defendant conspired to purchase and sell shares at a high price on the 201-14th order of December 27, 2010 to December 21, 201, the Defendant purchased shares at a large price on the 201-5th order of December 1, 201-21-21, 201-14.

B. (1) With respect to the part related to the control of the first, second, and third market prices (not guilty of reasons), the lower court determined that the status and role of E and U are different in the process of acquiring the instant company, and each of them has separate motive.