All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. While examining the legal principles and evidence related to occupational breach of trust, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts contrary to the empirical rule or the rules of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on intent to commit business judgment or breach of trust, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, in the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of occupational breach of trust among the facts charged of this case.

B. Examining the violation portion of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Market Act”) due to the acquisition of unregistered profits in light of relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of “profit from a violation” under Articles 443(1) and 443(2)2 of the former Act on the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter “former Capital Market Act”) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intention to commit a violation of the Capital Market Act or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

subsection (b) of this section.

2. As to the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, proved that the amount of property damage by J as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) is at least KRW 500 million, which is the lower limit under Article 3(1)2 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) without any reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to view it as a case where there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and judged not guilty on the grounds.

The judgment below

Even if examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the assessment of unlisted stocks, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

(b) equivalent to 1,195,693,250 won of unrealistic profits;