본문 바로가기 주메뉴로 바로가기
All
TITLE Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6962 Decided April 12, 2018 【Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act】 * First draft [full Text]
Summary
[1] Meaning of “a rumor that a fluctuation in the market price is being caused by his/her or a third person’s market manipulation,” and “a material fact in trading” as prescribed under Articles 176(2)2 and 176(2)3 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Meaning of and standard for determining “[an] intent to attract anyone to trade”
Whether it is permissible for a person, who engages in quasi-investment advisory business and provides advice concerning judgments on investment in listed securities or the values of listed securities, to take part in market manipulation as prescribed under Articles 176(2)2 and 176(2)3 of the said Act (negative)
[2] Meaning of and standard for determining “unfair means, scheme, or trick” as prescribed under Article 178(1)1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act
[3] Meaning of “deceptive scheme” as prescribed under Article 178(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act
[4] Legal interests protected by Articles 176 and 178 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act
In cases where one had persistently and repeatedly engaged in a number of activities forbidden under Articles 176 and 178 of the said Act for a certain period of time for the purposes of causing a fluctuation in the market price or unfair trading with a single and continuous criminal intention, number of the offences (held: blanket offense)
[5] Purpose of prohibiting fraudulent unfair trading as prescribed under Article 178(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and method of determining what constitutes deceptive unfair trading
[6] Purpose of joint penal provisions as prescribed under Article 448 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and the nature of liability of a corporation where a corporate representative violated a law (held: direct liability of corporations)
Whether joint penal provisions on accountability are applicable to a single-person corporation, where shares of incorporated companies practically belong to a single shareholder (affirmative)
Prev Supreme Court Order 2017Seu630 Dated April 17, 2018 【Petition for Return of a Child (The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction)】 * First draft
Next Supreme Court Decision 2017Du74702 Decided April 12, 2018【Revocation of Decision of the Appeals Commission for Educators】* First draft
219 Seocho-ro,Seocho-gu,Seoul 06590,Republic of Korea 02-3480-1100