(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.30 2017노613 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.30 2017노613

자본시장과금융투자업에관한법률위반등

Text

1. Of the judgment below, the part on Defendant C (including the part on innocence) shall be reversed.

Defendant

C. Fine 200,000.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1 was established on May 2, 2008, as the trade name “E” corporation, and the trade name was changed to “OD” on March 31, 2010, and the trade name was changed to “AP” on August 31, 201.

It is called "AP" regardless of its time.

Defendant A did not take part in the operation of the market price prior to March 15, 2010 and the third market price operation during the first market price operation related to the AP shares.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty as to this part of the facts charged, and on the other hand, the court below held that the participants in the trade at a specific market price was liable for the acts between the participants, unless there are any special circumstances in relation to the third market price operation. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the principle of liability.

2) Even if misunderstanding the legal principles as to comprehensive daily crimes, Defendant A’s third market price operation crime is recognized, each of the primary and third market prices operation crimes is in the relation of a single comprehensive crime.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the crime of the first and second market price manipulation and the third market price manipulation are concurrent crimes.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3) The amount of unfair benefits that Defendant A acquired by mistake as to whether to recognize the benefits of the party can be calculated, and there is almost no absence.

Nevertheless, the court below made a judgment on the premise that Defendant A’s improper benefits are recognized, and the court below erred by mistake of fact.

4) The misunderstanding of the fact regarding the fraud of the victim GW was that Defendant A lent KRW 100 million to the victim GW, and it was provided as security by GW.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law by mistake.

유사 판례

-대법원 2018.06.19 2017도20990

-서울남부지방법원 2017.02.03 2014고합119

-서울고등법원 2017.07.13 2017노107

-대법원 2018.06.15 2016도1103

-서울고등법원 2017.05.18 2016노3433