Defendant

All appeals filed by A, C, D and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) or “C”

1) Article 445 Subparag. 6 and Article 49 Subparag. 2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) provides that “any financial investment business entity shall not provide a conclusive judgment or inform that it is likely to mislead or mislead any person to be certain,” in making an investment recommendation. Article 445 Subparag. 6 of the said Act provides that any financial investment business entity shall not be punished for any person who commits an act falling under Article 49 Subparag. 2 of the said Act.

In other words, Article 49 Subparag. 2 of the Capital Markets Act is combined with Article 445 Subparag. 6 of the same Act to form a legal provision on punishment. Since the meaning of “unaccuracyd matters”, “a critical judgment”, and “the likelihood of misleading mistake” is unclear, each of the above provisions of the Capital Markets Act is in violation of the principle of clarity in the principle of no punishment without law.

B. Facts of the judgment below

1.(a)

(1) The facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below

1.(a)

1) On April 28, 2010, Defendant A, at around 10:30 on April 28, 2010, is a school foundation I university (hereinafter “I”).

(1) The first meeting of the Fund Management Advisory Committee (hereinafter “First meeting of the Fund Management Advisory Committee”) held at the meeting room of the president in 2010.

There is no fact that the phrase “it is possible to connect a product that presents 12% profit without any risk.”

Even if Defendant A used the aforementioned expressions, it is merely the mere fact that Defendant A did not mention at all what is the “goods that present 12% profit” and the said goods are simply referred to as “sable.” Thus, Article 49 Subparag. 2 of the Capital Markets Act is applicable.