The judgment below

Of the defendants C, the part of the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 50,000,000.

Defendant

C above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the violation of the prohibition against illegal transactions, Defendant B (A) did not intend to obtain money or other property benefits from the Defendant.

B) In relation to the violation of the obligation to report mass possession, a person who owns 1 million shares of H (hereinafter “H”) of a stock company (hereinafter “H”) is not the Defendant but AM, and thus cannot be deemed the Defendant as a person without reporting mass possession.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In relation to Defendant C1’s violation of the duty to report large-scale possession of shares, the Defendant held 640,500 shares of H as stated in the facts charged around March 2013, but the shareholding ratio was not 5.34% but 5.09%.

2) In misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, the lower court determined that the Defendant had acquired KRW 339,706,554 in return for the sale of shares, such as the facts charged, and that the Defendant would have obtained a considerable amount of unfair profit. The lower court seems to have selected the sentencing criteria for securities financial crimes [the Sentencing type 2 (at least KRW 100,000,000) out of the use of undisclosed important information, market price control, and unfair trading].

However, since it is difficult to conclude that the amount of loss avoided by the defendant is more than KRW 100 million, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding of legal principles by applying the sentencing guidelines as above.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, fine of 30 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 as to Defendant B’s assertion that there was a mistake in fact) related to the violation of the prohibition against illegal transactions, and as seen below, it is reasonable to deem that the person holding H stocks is not AM but the Defendant. The monetary benefits have been realized due to the Defendant’s false disclosure led by the Defendant, and directly to AM.