º»¹® ¹Ù·Î°¡±â ÁÖ¸Þ´º·Î ¹Ù·Î°¡±â
All
TITLE Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6962 Decided April 12, 2018 ¡¼Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act¡½ [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¡± under Articles 176(2)2 and 176(2)3 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act

Meaning of and standard for determining ¡°intent to attract anyone to trade¡±

Whether it is permissible for a person who engages in quasi-investment advisory business to provide advice concerning investment decisions in listed securities, etc. or the value of listed securities, etc. and engage in market manipulation 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¡± under Article 178(1)1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act

[3] Meaning of ¡°deceptive scheme¡± 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 a person 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 of listed securities with a single and continuous criminal intention, the number of offences (held: single, blanket offense)

[5] Purpose of prohibiting deceptive unfair trading 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 instituted under Article 448 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and the nature of corporate liability where a corporate representative violates a law (held: direct liability of a corporation)

Whether a single-person corporation where shares of an incorporated company practically belong to a single shareholder is likewise governed by the joint penal provisions on corporate liability (affirmative)
Prev Supreme Court Order 2017Seu630 Dated April 17, 2018 ¡¼Petition for Return of a Child (The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction)¡½
Next Supreme Court Decision 2017Du74702 Decided April 12, 2018¡¼Revocation of Decision of the Appeals Commission for Educators¡½
219 Seocho-ro,Seocho-gu,Seoul 06590,Republic of Korea 02-3480-1100