logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.05.18 2017노1569
자본시장과금융투자업에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) is as follows: (a) Defendant’s acquisition of shares offered by K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) on December 11, 2014; and (b) Defendant’s acquisition of KRW 2 billion of the bonds issued by KK on January 7, 2015 (hereinafter “F”) on December 7, 2015; (c) Defendant’s acquisition of the bonds issued by K on December 8, 2014 constitutes a single acquisition following a separate decision on capital financing (i.e., a decision on the issuance of new bonds by a third party on January 6, 2015) and a decision on the issuance of new stocks on January 6, 2015 (i.e., a decision on capital increase by the Defendant and F to participate in the capital increase; and (d) Defendant did not have any logically impossible agreement on the act under Article 141(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and thus, (i.

2. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same as the above in the court below, and the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged on the premise that the defendant and F had a duty to report under Article 147 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Capital Market Act, on the ground that the defendant and F agreed that the act of acquiring K's stocks and converted bonds was conducted in a series of processes to raise K's funds for business financing, since the defendant and F reached an agreement to conduct an act under each subparagraph of Article 141 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Capital Market Act.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and in addition to the legislative intent purpose and the literal and systematic interpretation of the provisions, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant in the judgment of the court below.

subsection (b) of this section.

(i)..

arrow