The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) provides that no person shall engage in financial investment business (excluding investment advisory business and discretionary investment business) without authorization therefor under this Act (Article 11); and that no person shall establish or operate a financial investment instrument market without authorization therefor (Article 373); that, in violation of Article 11, a person who engages in financial investment business without authorization therefor (Article 44 subparag. 1) or a person who establishes or operates financial investment instruments without authorization therefor (Article 444 subparag. 27) without authorization therefor in violation of Article 373 (Article 44 subparag. 27).

In addition, the term "financial investment business" means an act conducted continuously or repeatedly for the purpose of earning a profit, which falls under any of the investment trading business, investment brokerage business, collective investment business, investment advisory business, discretionary investment business, trust business (Article 6(1)); and the term "investment trading business" means the business of selling and purchasing financial investment instruments, issuing and receiving securities, or inviting offers, offering, and accepting offers for securities on its own account, regardless of in whose name the term "investment trading business" refers to the business of selling and buying financial investment instruments, soliciting offers, offering, accepting offers, or accepting offers for securities on another person's account in whosever named (Article 6(2). The term "investment brokerage business" means the business of selling and buying financial investment instruments, soliciting offers, offering

(3) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, in light of the facts found in its reasoning, the lower court is a member at a private futures trading site (hereinafter “instant private site”) established by Defendant A with AH and AI, etc. (hereinafter “Defendant et al.”).