The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months, Defendant B's imprisonment for a period of one year and six months, and Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of legal principles or mistake of facts) Defendant A lent the purchase fund of the shares to Defendant C and B in violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and Defendant D agreed to purchase the warrant right of the JAB with Defendant D, but withdrawn the purchase price, which was paid to Defendant D prior to the withdrawal, and Defendant C, B, and D lent the name of Defendant C, B, and D, and the shares of the JAB or the warrant right (hereinafter “stocks or warrant right”) are “stocks, etc.”

Since no purchase was made, it is not the subject of the M&A City/Do in large M&A with respect to the J M&A agreement.

In addition, as long as Defendant C purchased the shares of the JBS and completed the transfer of ownership in its name through the securities account in its own name with the money withdrawn from the deposit account in its own name, the said shares shall be deemed owned by Defendant C regardless of the nature of the money paid by Defendant C to Defendant C.

Therefore, Defendant A is not obliged to report the holding situation, such as stocks, etc. of JA and major shareholders, so it cannot be said that Defendant A violated its obligations.

In addition, as long as Defendant C actually attempted the above M&A, Defendant C cannot be deemed to have made a false report on the holding situation, such as the stock holding agreement.

In addition, even if Defendant B and D's report on the holding of stocks in bulk was made, Defendant C was in charge of its practice, and Defendant B and D were aware that Defendant C made the report lawfully.

On the other hand, if Defendant A purchased shares, etc. from Defendant C, B, and D, it is assumed that Defendant A purchased shares, etc. of the J&A due to the above M&A City/Do, Defendant A sold the shares of the J&A in his/her own, its wife, and its F, and that Defendant C, B, and D purchased shares of the J&A in the name of Defendant C, B, and D, even after the rapid increase of the share holders in the J&A.