(a) The meaning of "information that may have a significant impact on investors' investment decisions" in Article 188-2 (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act;

B. Whether Article 188-2 (1) of the same Act is applicable even where the act of trading securities using the information referred to in paragraph (a) was conducted before the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy was enacted pursuant to delegation of the same Act

A. For the purpose of Article 188-2 (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act, the term "information that may have a significant impact on investors' investment decisions" shall be interpreted to refer to the information that is thought to have an important value in determining whether a reasonable investor would have an intent to trade in securities if it is compared and assessed by comparing and assessing the importance of the information and the probability of a fact that a reasonable investor would have an important value in determining the intent to trade in securities, and such information shall not be necessarily required to be objectively clear and reliable.

B. Matters delegated to this Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy under Article 188-2 (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act are limited to the time when the information is disclosed to the public by the method of disclosing information to the public so that many people can be known, and thus, if the information is not disclosed to the public at all in any way that may significantly affect investors' investment decisions, any internal trading made using the information before it is disclosed is in violation of the provisions of Article 188-2 (1) of the same Act regardless of the contents of the regulations of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy under delegation by the above provision. Therefore, even if the transaction was made before April 28, 1992, the act of violating the provisions of Article 188-2 (1) of the same Act shall be deemed to have been committed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy under delegation by Article 188-2 (2).

Article 188-2 (1) and (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 186 (1) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 4701 of Jan. 5, 1994)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Lee In-bok et al.

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No8089 delivered on February 16, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 3 of the defense counsel's ground of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed by the defendant 1 after the expiration of the period for submitting the appellate brief, the grounds of appeal on the supplemental appellate brief stated in the supplemental appellate brief filed by the defendant 1 are examined

If the evidence adopted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below is examined by comparing it with the records, Defendant 1 knew that the representative director of the Co-Defendant 2 Co-Defendant 1, the largest shareholder of the Co-Defendant 2 and the managing member of the above Co-Defendant 2's high industrial investment association, who managed and operated the above Co-Defendant 2, are suffering from extreme financial difficulties in relation to his usual duties, and that the beginning price of the non-indicted Co-Defendant Co-Defendant 1, in spite of the management status of the non-indicted Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant 2, Ltd., was at an expensive level immediately after the stock exchange listed on the stock exchange of the non-indicted Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd., notwithstanding the management status of the non-indicted Co-Defendant Co., Ltd., the intention of other investors to make unfair profits or avoid losses by using it from February 1, 1992

2. Determination as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 (the grounds of appeal as to the supplemental appellate brief filed by the joint law firm of Dongyang-gu after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief is examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief

(a) Article 18-2 of the Securities and Exchange Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "any person falling under any of the following subparagraphs (including any person in whose case one year has not passed since he was not subject to any of subparagraphs 1 through 5-1) who becomes aware of material information which has not been disclosed to the public in connection with the business of a listed corporation or a registered corporation in connection with the business of the listed corporation or the registered corporation, and any person who receives such information from such person shall not use or allow another person to use such information in connection with the sale and purchase or other transaction of securities issued by the corporation" in paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "important information which has not been disclosed to the public" shall be referred to in paragraph (1) of the same Article, among the information on facts falling under any of subparagraphs of Article 186 (1) of the Act, which may have a significant impact on investors' investment judgment, and shall be referred to in paragraph (2) of the same Article so that the corporation concerned may disclose the information to the public in accordance with the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy Act".

B. It is necessary for ordinary investors to believe that the securities market is fair and fair and participate in the securities transaction on the premise of soundness of the securities market, as a basis for linking the demands of both sides of the asset management through the financing of companies and the investment in securities of the people, in order to properly carry out the functions of the national economy that allocates funds efficiently.

However, in cases where an insider of a listed corporation is involved in the transaction of securities using important information that could affect the judgment on investment in securities from among the internal information of a corporation whose access was not permitted in connection with the business of the corporation in question, the act is understood as prohibiting internal trading as above, because the securities market is likely to impair the fairness of the transaction of securities and the trust of ordinary investors in the soundness of the securities market by facilitating unjust profit to its insiders and impairing the equality of trading partners in the securities market, thereby impairing the function of distributing national funds efficiently. Thus, in order for the securities market to properly contribute to the development of the national economy by fulfilling its function, it is difficult to strictly regulate internal trading.

C. In light of the above legislative intent of Article 188-2 of the "Act" which provides for the prohibition of insider trading, the key elements of insider trading prohibited by the above provision of the Act are "use before disclosure of corporate information which may have a significant impact on investors' investment decisions". Thus, "information which may have a significant impact on investors' investment decisions" under Article 186-1 (1) 1 through 11 of the "Act" means "fact that the types of such facts, etc. are individually shown in Article 186-1 (1) 1 through 11 of the Act, and that the overall provision of subparagraph 12 has a significant impact on corporate management". In addition, if a reasonable investor makes a decision by comparing and assessing the importance and probability of the information, it is reasonable to interpret that the information that has an important value in determining the intent of securities trading should not be clearly and clearly clear and clearly as to the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, Article 186 (1) of the "Act" and Article 188-2 of the "Act on the Prohibition of Internal Transaction of Listed Corporations" are different from each other. Thus, since any information is related to the facts that had already occurred before shares were listed on the securities market, such as novels, the obligation to report under Article 186 (1) of the "Act" has not been made until that time, or even if it is difficult to expect the performance of the obligation to report under the above provision because certain information is related to crimes or corruption inside a corporation, and thus it is difficult to expect the performance of the obligation to report under the above provision, if the information could have a significant impact on ordinary investors' investment decision, the inside transaction before the information is disclosed to the public should also be deemed prohibited by Article 188-2 (1) of the "Act".

D. In the instant case, as the court below duly confirmed the facts, although the non-indicted stock company was in blacks on the account books, the actual cumulative and large-scale factory construction may cause serious financial difficulties to the extent that the checks will be defaulted. It is evident that if an investor is reasonable, he would have a significant value in determining that the non-indicted stock company would have an intention to trade the shares of the non-indicted stock company. Thus, if such information is not disclosed to the general public, it is traded at a higher price without delay due to the manipulation of purchase orders by the related parties immediately after the stocks are listed on the securities market, and then it is hard to interpret that the information of the non-indicted stock company 2 was disclosed to the public in accordance with Article 18-2(1) of the Act as being delegated by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy regardless of the fact that the non-indicted stock company's internal status was known as being in violation of Article 18-2(8) of the Act.

E. Therefore, the decision of the court below that applied Articles 208 subparag. 6 and 188-2(1)2 of the Act to Defendant 2 and Articles 215(2), 208 subparag. 6 and 188-2(1) of the Act to Defendant 1’s above act is just and acceptable, and the decision of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 188-2(1) of the Act, as in the theory of lawsuit, as in the judgment of the court below, since there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 188-2(1) of the Act.

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)