A. Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, 2013

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

(c) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

1.(a)(c) A;

2.(a) I

3.(a) E.

Kim Young-young (Lawsuits) and Kim Delay (Trial)

Attorney J, K (for the defendant)

Law Firm L, Attorneys M et al. (Defendant I)

February 7, 2014

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two and a half years, by imprisonment for a period of two and a half years, and by imprisonment for a period of one and a half years.

However, with respect to Defendant E, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

On November 26, 2012, Defendant 1 was sentenced to the suspended sentence of ten years for violating the Securities and Exchange Act by the Seoul Eastern District Court on October 26, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive around March 2013.

Defendant A is a major shareholder of Company C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) and Defendant E is a financial director of Company C.

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

A. Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act in relation to primary market manipulation (from December 29, 201 to March 26, 2012)

(1) The background of crime, conspiracy, etc.

around June 2008, Defendant A borrowed approximately KRW 13 billion of the above loan amount as security, and around December 201, 201, Defendant A borrowed approximately KRW 4 million of the above loan amounting to about KRW 15 billion. The Defendant A intended to sell the shares owned by Defendant C and redeem the above loan amount.

At the time, C was approximately KRW 5,000 per share, and on December 2, 2011, Defendant I and N agreed that Defendant I and N acquire, under the pretext of incentives for Defendant I and N, for the share price of KRW 2,00,00 per share owned by Defendant A, at a price of at least 8,00 won per share, with respect to the share price of KRW 2,00,000 per share owned by Defendant A.

Since then, Defendant I and N performed market price operation by collecting C’s shares using their own accounts. From January 13, 2012 to April 18, 2012, Defendant I and N provided 80,000 shares issued from Defendant A to Defendant A as a block cover, etc., with the market price of 0,000 shares as stock for house security.

In addition, Defendant A instructed Defendant E, the head of the financial department of C in order to support the share price, to control the market price of C’s shares. Accordingly, Defendant E borrowed KRW 240 million from the R1 on January 2012, 200, etc. and offered C’s share price manipulation.

Through such a series of processes, the Defendants conspired to earn profits from the market price manipulation by means of selling stocks directly with N, etc. by means of buying stocks directly.

(2) The primary stock price manipulation;

The Defendants, as seen above, conspired with N, etc. to make unfair profits by controlling the market price of stocks with N, etc. from December 29, 201, to March 26, 2012, through 127 securities accounts with a total of 114 securities accounts, including Swelves, from around December 29, 201 to March 26, 201, the Defendants: (a) conspired to trade 153,293 shares with a total of 192 occasions for the purpose of inducing others to mislead or make a false judgment; (b) purchased 776,647 high-priced shares with a total of 328,710 shares; (c) purchased 785,40,192 shares; (d) purchased 127 shares with a total of 127 securities account; and (e) sold 270,470,748 shares with an order of KRW 275,715,7547 shares; and (e) ordered 271647,75,7475 shares with an order

As a result, the Defendants conspired with N, etc. for the purpose of creating a false appearance of active trading or causing another person to make a false judgment, or for the purpose of inducing anyone to make a false judgment, they acquired unjust enrichment by causing stock price manipulation, such as stock trading, for the purpose of inducing anyone to trade.

B. Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to the secondary market price manipulation (from May 2, 2012 to September 21, 2012)

(1) The background and conspiracy of crime

As above, the Defendants conspired with N, etc. to either artificially support C’s share price, which led to KRW 11,900 per share on March 26, 2012, which led to the decline of the share price. On the other hand, around April 2012, the Defendants came to collapsed KRW 8,00 per share.

In addition, around June 2012, Defendant A offered approximately KRW 15 billion as security by borrowing approximately KRW 15 billion from a master bonds company around June 2012, Defendant A’s investment in Colombia, and thereby offered approximately KRW 8 million as security to securities company and bond company among approximately KRW 9.7 million of Defendant A’s stocks.

Defendant A was at the risk of losing the status and management right of a major shareholder due to the decline in C's share price when the collateral ratio of 130% or 150% cannot be met. Accordingly, Defendant A requested Defendant E and the Defendant to support the share price.

Defendant E and I, upon the direction of Defendant A, had a telephone call from time to time and had a market price operated through his own account, etc.

Through such a series of processes, the Defendants conspired to get profits from the market price manipulation by means of buying and selling shares directly.

(2) The secondary stock price manipulation;

As above, the Defendants conspired to make unfair profits by operating the market price of C/C shares from May 2, 2012 to September 21, 2012; from around 136, total number of 170 securities accounts, etc., the Defendants traded C/C shares using the 170 securities account; 42,503 p.m. total 42,504 p.m. 42,503 p.m.; 3,474 p.m. 1,56,807 p.m. 1,56,807 p.m. 650 p. 472,10 p.m. total quantity of 1,389 p.m. 1,634,52 p.m.; 1,484,48 p.m. 14,97 p. 98 p.m. 294m. 97m. (hereinafter referred to as 94 p.m.).

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to make a false judgment as to C’s trading, or caused others to make a false judgment, and acquired unjust enrichment by making a price manipulation such as stock price manipulation for the purpose of inducing C’s trading.

2. The sole crime committed by Defendant A;

A. The background of crime;

Defendant A supported the share price so that the shares held by the securities company and the bond company as collateral do not constitute an opposite trade. However, from September 24, 2012 to September 28, 2012, the share price fell at KRW 3,000 due to the continuous lower limit of five trading days. On October 2, 2012, the share price held by the securities company and the bond company was set down in the market by the opposite trade.

As a result, the investors who believe that Defendant A or Defendant 1’s promise to guarantee principal and who collected shares have caused a large-scale demand for compensation of losses to Defendant A.

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

On December 22, 2012, Defendant A issued one bill of promissory note 1 billion in the name of the victim C to use for compensating investors for losses, and paid to investors for compensating for losses. On December 22, 2012, the date of payment of the bill of exchange, the amount of KRW 1 billion was settled from the account in the name of the victim C.

As a result, Defendant A embezzled an amount equivalent to the same amount by using KRW 1 billion as the compensation for losses, which is an individual debt, while keeping the victim C in the course of business.

(c) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

Defendant A has the duty to use the victim C funds only for the business of the company, etc. and to protect the company by maintaining the financial status of the company in a sound manner because it is not arbitrarily used for personal purposes, etc.

Nevertheless, Defendant A issued two copies of the Promissory Notes in the name of the injured party C on September 25, 2012 and October 2, 2012 to be used for compensating investors for losses in violation of such occupational duties, and delivered one copy to investors U and V, respectively.

As a result, Defendant A acquired a total of KRW 2 billion property benefit and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount to Victim C.

Summary of Evidence

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 1 at the Time of Sales】

1. Defendant I’s legal statement and each part of Defendant A and E’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness N, Q, W, X, Y, Z, AA, and AB;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning Defendant I;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning H, AC, and AD;

1. AE statements;

1. AF, AG, AH, AI, and I report on the transaction volume of Korean investment securities, submitted by a person suspected of filing an investigation report [Attachment to a certificate of storage of C’s actual shares, sales contract, etc.], investigation report [Attachment to Korea Investment Securities], investigation report [AF, AG, AH, AI, and I’s bank account number verification, analysis report [the analysis report on the transaction volume verification, etc. relating to the N’s statement for the price manipulation (State)], analysis report (the analysis report on the C’s price manipulation, such as high-priced purchase order, etc. [the main analysis report], the unfair order submission of the first market price manipulation working period, the investigation report [the report on the results of an Exchange’s review], the report on the results of the C’s common review, the report on the investigation [Attachment to AE statement related to the AHP fund], the report on additional data on the purchase of unjust profits in each section of C’s order, the report on additional data on the account price manipulation / [the computation of the account price manipulation 2 per page / [the second day of account price manipulation.

1. Copy of the corporate register (C), C’s share price details, written confirmation of delivery of stocks, etc., sales contract, stocks sales contract, summary order of 2005 high or high or 6109 high or high or new bank account transactions in the name of N, HMF investment securities account transactions in the name of N, HMF investment securities account transactions in the name of N, and copy of the judgment, Seoul Central District Court (AK) in Seoul Central District Court (205 high or high or high or high or high or new bank account transactions in the name of N, records of Korean investment securities account transactions in the name of N, certificates of stock custody, notes, loan records, etc., written notes, requests for the preservation of purchase loss of stocks and notice of the execution of promissorysory notes, pen notes, records of investment in resources development (autonomous disclosure), I documents, and Q submission balance

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 2 at the Time of Sales】

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Second prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant I

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of Defendant E by prosecution;

1. A copy of each promissory note or the account opened in the name C Bank;

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

1. Court rulings of the Seoul Eastern District Court 2012dan523, Seoul Eastern District Court 2012No1513, criminal records, etc. (I);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Article 43(2)2, 4, and 5 of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 176(1)1, 2, 3, and 176(2)1 of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 201); Article 443(1)4, 5, and 176(1)1, 2, 3, and (2)1 of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same)

(b) Defendant I and E: Article 43(2)2, (1)4, and 5, Article 176(1)1, 2, and 3, and (2)1 of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the first manipulation of market price), Article 43(1)4 and 5, Article 176(1)1, 2, and 3, and 176(2)1 of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the second manipulation of market price, the second choice of imprisonment);

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant I: the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to the primary manipulation of the largest punishment and crime)

(b) Defendant I and E: The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Act (limited to the sum of the long-term punishments of the above two crimes)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendants: Each of the Defendants: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (Consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant E: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration is made for the reason of sentencing)

Judgment on Defendants’ assertion

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant A

(1) Claim on the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to the primary market price manipulation

(A) Defendant A merely agreed on the block with Defendant I, etc., and did not offer the primary manipulation of market prices.

(B) In light of the circumstances following the termination of the primary market price manipulation, it is unreasonable to calculate the “unrealizedable profit” under the assumption that Defendant A, etc. disposes of the stocks that were not disposed of at the closing price of March 26, 2012.

(2) The argument about the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

Defendant A issued a promissory note for the raising of C’s funds, and asked Defendant A to sell the said promissory note at will. In addition, Defendant A, with knowledge of the fact that the said promissory note was arbitrarily disposed, deposited KRW 1 billion in the account of C around November 5, 2012, and had C use the said promissory note as the payment for the settlement of the said promissory note. Accordingly, Defendant A did not have embezzled the amount of money of C in the course of business.

(3) Claim on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to the issuance of promissory notes against V

Defendant A issued a promissory note for the financing of C, and requested the discount of the bill, and Defendant A arbitrarily disposed of the said promissory note. Therefore, Defendant A did not have an intention to commit occupational breach of trust.

B. Defendant E

Defendant E only purchased part of the C’s shares in accordance with the direction of Defendant A’s stock price defense, and there was no conspiracy with Defendant I, etc. concerning the primary manipulation of market prices.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

A. Determination as to whether a public offering to manipulation the primary market price

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each evidence in the judgment, Defendant A is deemed to have participated in the primary manipulation of market price by giving Defendant I, etc. instructions and requests for the purchase of the volume of large volume sold after having been well aware of the fact that Defendant A, etc. intends to artificially support C’s share price, and by giving Defendant E instructions and requests for the purchase of the volume of large volume sold to Defendant I, etc.

(1) 피고인 A과 피고인 | 등 사이의 블록딜 협의

(A) On December 201, Defendant A, etc. consulted with Defendant A, etc. to the effect that “Defendant A, etc.” had a 2 million or more share price per share for a block with a price of at least 8,000 won per share for a 2 million share owned by Defendant A to buy the part amounting to KRW 8,000 per share and exceeding KRW 8,00 per share for a block with a view to acquiring the part that exceeds KRW 8,00 per share.” At the time of the above consultation with Defendant A, Defendant A, etc., the share price of KRW 5,00 per share was formed at the beginning of 00 per share and there was no particular change in share price for KRW 80 per share with a continuous decrease in the sales price at the time, and Defendant A also attempted to have a 0-year-old share price for a 0-year-old share price for a 00-year-old share price for a 0-year-old share share price.

(B) Defendant A asserted that he was unaware of the circumstances that Defendant A intended to make a price manipulation. However, as seen earlier, Defendant A was well aware of the circumstances that Defendant A had no reason to increase a large amount of share price; ② Defendant A offered to Defendant A a promise to pay more than KRW 8,000 per share to Defendant A, etc. solely on the ground that Defendant A introduced the block with Defendant A as a party to the block with a view to introducing the BHP fund, it is difficult to obtain a benefit in light of the empirical rule; ③ if Defendant A took into account only the block with Defendant A, not an authorized institution, and it appears that Defendant A did not have a base to take charge of a block deal without preparing a written agreement; ④ Defendant A did not actively engage in an official block transaction, such as direct price negotiations with the BHP fund, even after the aforementioned consultation. In light of the fact that Defendant A did not actively promote the aforementioned assertion, it is difficult to believe the above Defendant A’s assertion.

(2) AL-holding C Shares 580,000 shares

(A) On January 2012, Defendant A requested Defendant A, etc. to sell approximately KRW 580,00 of C shares owned by AL directly to Defendant A, etc. around that time. Defendant A, etc. instructed or requested Defendant A, etc. to purchase approximately KRW 580,00 of C shares. In light of the above circumstances, Defendant A did not seem to have been in mind only of the block with the time. In addition, Defendant A was actively involved in the artificial support of C share price, such as trying to defend the decline of C share price arising from the sale of shares in large volume, and ② Defendant A, etc. was using the “C share” to gather shares by gathering C shares. If Defendant A, etc. was unaware of the circumstances, it appears that Defendant A, etc. did not request Defendant A, etc. to purchase the shares in large volume of KRW 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

(B) Defendant A et al. asserted to the effect that Defendant A et al. first requested the purchase of the said C shares and arranged the said transaction between AL and Defendant I, etc., and that Defendant A et al. did not first instructed or requested the purchase of the said C shares. However, Defendant A consistently stated to the effect that Defendant A et al. requested the purchase of the said C shares from the investigative agency, and ② Defendant A et al. sought to sell the said C shares immediately after receiving the above direction or request from Defendant A and the negotiation related to the stock transaction with Defendant A, in light of the fact that Defendant A et al. sought a person to sell the said C shares immediately after receiving the said direction or request from Defendant A.

(3) The relationship between Defendant A and Defendant

(A) Q, etc. involved in the first price manipulation as Defendant I, etc., stated to the effect that "A and Defendant A talked about C's share price at any time in an investigative agency or this court." The Defendant also made a telephone call at an investigative agency with Defendant A and Q, etc., and that "it is true that the investigative agency made a telephone call with Defendant A and Q, etc., and that it did not enter to the effect that "a certain extent of the increase in the number of days" or "the number of days will be well." In light of the above circumstances, it is true that Defendant A, etc. knew that Defendant I et al. support C's share price artificially, and managed C's share price through Defendant I.

(B) In addition, around January 2012, immediately after Defendant A consulted with Defendant I on the block, Defendant A opened an account to prevent share price from falling, and gave instructions to Defendant E to sell shares. Accordingly, Defendant E, from January 2012, by providing funds of KRW 240 million to obtain a loan from R, etc. from Defendant E, purchased shares of KRW 10 million or KRW 30 million, etc.; ② Defendant A appears to have actively participated in the first price manipulation around March 2012, when the first price manipulation of the instant case was completed; and Defendant A sold approximately 50 million shares of Defendant C around April 2012, after the first price manipulation of the instant case, Defendant A appears to have been aware of the fact that Defendant A participated in the first price manipulation by either artificial means such as market manipulation, etc., and Defendant A, even after the first price manipulation after the first price manipulation of the instant case.

B. Determination on the calculation of profits accrued from the primary market price manipulation

The term “unrealized profits” among the profits accrued from the violation of Article 443(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act refers to the appraised profits of the stocks held at the time of the end of the market price manipulation, and barring any special circumstance, it shall be calculated at the time of termination of the market price manipulation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do15056, Jul. 11, 2013).

In light of the above legal principles, “unrealized profits earned from the primary market price manipulation” refers to the valuation profits earned by Defendant A, etc. at the time when the primary market price manipulation ends, and should be calculated based on the closing price on March 26, 2012, which was at the time when the primary market price manipulation ends. It cannot be said that the method of calculation is unreasonable on the ground that the C market price fell after the primary market price manipulation ends or the profits actually earned by Defendant A, etc. fall short of the above valuation profits.

C. Judgment on the argument regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

(1) The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence of each judgment, namely, ① Defendant A’s act of embezzlement was denied after the second trial of this case was closed, and Defendant A’s assertion is difficult to believe this part of this case’s assertion as it is, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) Defendant A’s delivery of a promissory note to Defendant A; (b) Defendant E issued a promissory note under the name of Defendant A at an investigative agency; and (c) Defendant E also stated to the effect that “A issued a promissory note to the effect that it was known that the said promissory note was delivered to the person who would compensate for losses in the course of the stock transaction; (d) Defendant A knew that the said promissory note was delivered to Defendant A during the course of the stock transaction; and (e) Defendant A issued a promissory note for the purpose of compensating for losses in the course of the stock transaction, i.e., the use irrelevant to C, in the process of the stock transaction.

(2) In addition, each of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as indicated in the holding, i.e., ① the amount of a promissory note issued under the above circumstances is paid out from the account of C; ② the Defendant submitted reference materials 14 after the closing of the argument that he deposited the amount of one billion won borrowed from AM into the account of C and used it for the settlement of the above promissory note amount. However, the above reference materials alone can only be seen as having deposited the amount of one billion won into AMF. It cannot be seen whether Defendant A borrowed the above amount from AMF, whether the above amount was deposited into the account of C, whether the above amount was deposited into the account of C, whether the above amount was used for the settlement of the above promissory note amount, and there is no other evidence supporting Defendant A’s legal change; ③ Furthermore, even if the funds were used for the settlement of the amount of a promissory note, as seen earlier, the above promissory note was issued regardless of the interests of Defendant C, and thus, Defendant A’s use of the above funds as an embezzlement of C, regardless of its profits and 2014.

D. Determination on the assertion regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to the issuance of promissory notes against V

In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., ① Defendant E issued a promissory note in the name of C to compensate for losses arising from the purchase of shares, regardless of the benefits of C, in view of the following circumstances, i.e., ① Defendant E’s failure at the investigative agency to the effect that “V is aware that Defendant A was issued a promissory note in the name of C to compensate for losses arising from the purchase of shares,” and (ii) Defendant A was aware that all of the criminal acts of breach of trust were committed during the instant case from the second trial date until the closure of the pleadings of the instant case, and Defendant A was denied the criminal act of breach of trust after the closure of the pleadings of the instant case, and it is difficult to believe that Defendant A’s assertion in this part of this case is, regardless of the interests of C, in other words, the fact that Defendant A issued a promissory note in the name of C to compensate for losses arising from the process of trading shares.

3. Judgment on Defendant E’s assertion

Comprehensively taking account of each evidence in the judgment, the following circumstances, i.e., (i) Defendant E opened an account to ensure that the share price does not decline from Defendant A, and (ii) purchased shares from January 2012 through “one (1) or three (3).” In light of the above contents of Defendant E’s order and the mode of sale and purchase of shares, etc., Defendant E appears to have been well aware of the circumstances that Defendant E instructed the trading of shares for the artificial support of C’s share price; (iii) Defendant E had the history of artificially rising C’s share price in collusion with Defendant A, etc. around 203; and (iv) Defendant E appears to have been aware that there was an artificial public offering with Defendant A, etc. to manage the securities account of Defendant A, etc. as the head of the accounting division of C, and thus, Defendant E appears to have been aware that there was no artificial connection between Defendant A and the above Defendants E’s share price manipulation with Defendant A, etc. in light of the following circumstances:

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months but not more than twenty-two months;

(b) Defendant I and E: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and not more than six months but not more than twenty years;

2. The scope of sentence recommended according to the sentencing criteria; and

A. Defendant A

(1) Basic crime [Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act]

[Determination of Punishment] The securities and financial crime group of not less than five hundred million won but less than five billion won

[Special Aggravationd Do Governor] Aggravationd : Where significant influence on actual stock prices, etc. or the scale of unfair trade has been very large.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of not less than four years but not more than seven years (special aggravation)

(2) The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

[Determination of Punishment] From 50 million to 5 billion won for embezzlement and breach of trust;

[Special Emotional Persons] Reduction element: If the risk of damage is not substantially realized;

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months but not more than three years (Mitigations)

(3) Criteria for handling multiple crimes

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor of not less than four years but not more than eight years and six months;

B. Defendant 1

[Determination of Punishment] The securities and financial crime group of not less than five hundred million won but less than five billion won

[Special Aggravationd Do Governor] Aggravationd : Where significant influence on actual stock prices, etc. or the scale of unfair trade has been very large.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of not less than 4 years but not more than 7 years (Aggravated Field)

C. Defendant E

[Determination of Punishment] The securities and financial crime group of not less than five hundred million won but less than five billion won

[Special Aggravationd Do Governor] Aggravationd : Where significant influence on actual stock prices, etc. or the scale of unfair trade has been very large.

○ Reduction element: In a case where the degree of participation in passive criminal acts by pressure, etc. is insignificant

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months but not more than four years (Mitigations)

3. Determination of sentence;

Market manipulation act is not only an act that damages trust in the stock market and prevents the sound development of the capital market, but also an act that causes unexpected damages to unspecified general investors, and there is a great need for punishment.

In addition, in light of the fact that the instant market price manipulation was conducted twice for about seven months, the instant market price manipulation had a significant impact on the C market price, and the amount of unjust enrichment earned by the Defendants is significant, the Defendants’ nature of the crime and the crime committed are very poor.

○ Defendant A

In the case of Defendant A as a major shareholder C, it is inevitable to punish the majority of the minority shareholders who have invested in C for a long time and committed the instant crime; the degree of involvement in the instant crime is significant; the same criminal records exist; the amount of profit from the embezzlement and breach of trust of this case reaches a total of 3 billion won; and the amount of profit from the embezzlement and breach of trust of this case reaches a large amount of KRW 3 billion; however, it is consistent with the defense that he could not be able to avoid his responsibility.

However, in the process of expanding the business area of Defendant A operated from around 1971, it appears to have been prevented from committing the instant market manipulation crime by giving pressure to the financial pressure in the process of expanding the business area of Defendant A operated from around 1971. Also, it appears that the investor pressure in the process of market manipulation was not reached, and that the damage of Defendant A was most not realized, and that there was no criminal record of a fine or heavier punishment on Defendant A, etc., shall be considered as favorable circumstances for Defendant A, taking into account the fact that Defendant A was older than 7 years of age, and that Defendant A was more than 7 years of age, Defendant A’s character and behavior, family relationship, circumstances after committing the instant crime, and all other records and arguments of this case, and the sentencing guidelines shall be determined as per the order of this case beyond the sentencing guidelines.

○ Defendant 1

Defendant 1 received a balance sheet from other accomplices to ascertain the details of the C share purchase, convened a countermeasures meeting when the C's share price has fallen, and served as a link between Defendant A and other accomplices. In addition, the degree of involvement of Defendant I in the instant crime seems to be significant. In addition, in light of the fact that Defendant I committed the instant crime without being aware of during the period of the suspension of the execution of the execution of the execution of the Defendant, and Defendant I had the same criminal history, it is inevitable to punish Defendant I with severe punishment.

However, the fact that Defendant I recognizes all of the crimes committed by Defendant I, and that there is no criminal record of the sentence with Defendant I, etc., shall be considered as favorable circumstances for Defendant I, and the fact that Defendant I’s health status is not good, and the age, character and conduct, family relation, circumstances after the crime, and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case shall be determined by deviating from the sentencing criteria and by the sentence as ordered.

○ Defendant E

In light of the fact that Defendant E has the same criminal history as that of Defendant E, and that Defendant E intends to avoid his responsibility while denying his criminal act, etc., Defendant E’s liability is not easy.

However, Defendant E’s employee appears to have been actively involved in the crime of this case under the direction of Defendant A, and the degree of his participation in the crime of this case in light of the number of accounts operated by Defendant E and the stock transaction price, etc., etc., the degree of participation does not seem to be considerable, etc., shall be considered as favorable terms for Defendant E. In addition, taking into account the age, character and conduct, family relation, circumstances after the crime of Defendant E, and other sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments of this case, the punishment shall be determined as ordered by the disposition.

The presiding judge, the senior judge;

Judge Kim Jae-han

Judges Kim Yong-nam

1) It is the fund collected by C employees to leave a certain amount monthly, and is used for the welfare of employees, such as lending C employees a house purchase fund.

2) Peremptory Price during March 26, 2012, 201. 12, 28. 3) Peremptory Price

4) Peremptory Price among the pages on July 3, 2012, 2012

6) Comprehensively taking account of each of the evidence in the judgment below, it is recognized that the crime of this case by Defendant 1 was related to the crime between Defendant 2 and around December 29, 201, which was established after the judgment on the violation of the Korean Racing Association Act, was committed on August 10, 201, and was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on August 18, 201, which was sentenced to a violation of the Korean Racing Association Act on August 10, 201, which was established before the judgment on the violation of the Korean Racing Association Act, and was committed on October 2005 and around November 205, which was before the final judgment on the violation of the Korean Racing Association Act, and that the crime of this case by Defendant 2 was committed on September 21, 201, which was established after the final judgment on the violation of the Korean Racing Association Act on September 21, 2012. According to the above facts, even if Defendant 1 was prosecuted before the judgment on the violation of the Korean Racing Association Act, it cannot be applied to the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

7) Defendant I, N, and their “Defendant, etc.” in all of the so-called “the so-called “each party” mobilized to the manipulation of the instant market prices.

8) From October 201 to December 201, 201, the difference between KRW 4,920 per share and KRW 5,880 per share, and the change in width was not significant.

9) On January 18, 2012, upon Defendant A’s order or request, L and the Defendant purchased approximately KRW 580,000 shares of the above C on the basis of the agreement (the market was sold and purchased through the sale, but Defendant I et al. contacted Defendant I et al. immediately after having ordered the sale of the C shares, and accordingly, Defendant I et al. did not have any particular influence on C’s share price).

10) At the time C/C price is approximately KRW 7,00 per share, and approximately KRW 5,80,000 per share is about KRW 4 billion (= KRW 580,000 x KRW 7,000).

11) Defendant A appears to have sold approximately KRW 8,500 to KRW 9,00 per share C’s shares and C’s shares at the price.

12) Prosecution 2 Prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant I

13) The first prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant E

14) Reference Data 1 (Certificate of Payment)

15) Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on Defendant E