In writing only: email and e-filing

KSTGeneral information, not legal advice

Open Decision Ledger · Capital markets & finance

Joint Principal Offense Liability of a Messenger Who Delivers a Brokerage Reward and the Elements of Off-Balance Trading under the Securities and Exchange Act

Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean

Supreme Court, Dec. 8, 1998, 98Do3051 (judgment)

Case name: 증권거래법위반·특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(알선수재·증재등)

Official text on the National Law Information Center

  1. Question

    Can a person who brokered off-balance trading for stock price manipulation and delivered the fee received to an accomplice also be a joint principal offender of the offense of receiving a bribe for brokerage under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes?

  2. Holding

    The mere delivery of a reward by a third party who is not a party to the brokerage act does not constitute the offense of receiving a bribe for brokerage, but if the delivery was made with a joint intent to commit the crime with the party, the person becomes a joint principal offender. The Supreme Court, finding reasonable the court below's holding that off-balance trading conducted without the requirements of market making was guilty, dismissed the final appeal.

    Summary of the holding, verbatim

    그 제3자가 알선행위의 당사자와 공동가공의 의사를 가지고 금품 기타 이익을 중간에서 전달한 때에는 그 전달행위는 위 알선수재죄의 실행행위에 관여한 것으로서 공동정범의 죄책을 면할 수 없다.

    Unofficial English translation

    Where the third person delivered money, other valuables, or other profits in between with the intent of a joint scheme with the party to the act of mediation, such act of delivery constitutes participation in the act of execution of the above crime of receiving money or valuables for mediation, and the third person cannot escape the criminal liability of a joint principal offender.
  3. Disposition

    Dismissed Stated in the decision

    상고를 모두 기각한다.

    Unofficial English translation

    All appeals are dismissed.
  4. Form of the test

    Elements stated Stated in the decision

    그 전달행위는 위 알선수재죄의 실행행위에 관여한 것으로서 공동정범의 죄책을 면할 수 없다

    Unofficial English translation

    such act of delivery constitutes participation in the act of execution of the above crime of receiving money or valuables for mediation, and the third person cannot escape the criminal liability of a joint principal offender
  5. Factors

    • 알선행위의 당사자가 아닌 제3자가 그 대가인 금품 기타 이익을 중간에서 전달한 것에 불과한 경우
    • 양 당사자가 미리 통정한 후 동일 유가증권에 대하여 같은 시기에 같은 가격으로 매수 또는 매도하는 행위
    • 그 거래가 성황을 이루고 있는 듯이 잘못 알게 하거나 기타 타인으로 하여금 그릇된 판단을 하게 할 목적
    • 기간·가격 및 주체 등에 관한 엄격한 조건하에 예외적으로 허용되고

    Unofficial English translation

    • where a third person who is not a party to the act of mediation merely delivered in between money, other valuables, or other profits that constitute the consideration therefor

    • an act of purchasing or selling the same securities at the same time at the same price after the two parties have agreed in advance

    • the purpose of causing one to mistakenly believe that active trading is taking place, or otherwise causing another person to make an erroneous judgment

    • permitted exceptionally under strict conditions as to period, price, subject, etc., and

  6. Relation to precedent

    Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision

    대법원 1997. 12. 26. 선고 97도2609 판결

    Unofficial English translation

    Supreme Court Decision 97Do2609 decided December 26, 1997

    Decisions referred to

    [1] 대법원 1997. 12. 26. 선고 97도2609 판결(공1998상, 475)

  7. Burden of proof

    Not addressed Not in the decision

  8. Open question and revisit condition

    In off-balance trading intended to dispose of a large volume of shares without a sharp fall in stock prices, under what circumstances is the purpose of causing others to make erroneous judgments recognized?

    This reading needs to be rechecked if the provisions prohibiting off-balance trading under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act or Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes are amended.

Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check

7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16

In comparison with an independent reading by another AI model (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 7 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on the eighth axis (Open question and revisit condition).

Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “In off-balance trading intended to dispose of a large volume of shares without a sharp fall in stock prices, under what circumstances is the purpose of causing others to make erroneous judgments recognized?” vs Independent “Where the deliverer of money and goods knew that they were a brokerage reward but the joint intent to commit the crime is not recognized, does complicity arise?”

The primary reading asks about the circumstances for recognizing the unlawful purpose of off-balance trading for disposing of a large volume of shares, while the independent reading asks whether complicity arises on the part of a deliverer of money and goods who lacks the joint intent to commit the crime.

그 제3자가 알선행위의 당사자와 공동가공의 의사를 가지고 금품 기타 이익을 중간에서 전달한 때에는 그 전달행위는 위 알선수재죄의 실행행위에 관여한 것으로서 공동정범의 죄책을 면할 수 없다.

Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)

Lower-court contrast & scope of application

Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding

Lower-court context: The court below found that Defendant 1, after conspiring with another accomplice to broker off-balance trading for stock price manipulation and to receive a fee, participated in the receipt of money and goods in connection with the duties of employees and executives of a financial institution by delivering the fee received from the client who requested the brokerage to the other accomplice, and sentenced the defendant as a joint principal offender of the offense of receiving a bribe for brokerage, and also found the charge of off-balance sales guilty. With respect to Defendant 2, the court below dismissed the appeal, which was raised solely on the ground of improper sentencing.

Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court affirmed the court below's findings of fact and legal determinations. It stated that Defendant 1 participated in large-volume transactions by agreeing in advance with the parties to the trades so that they could be conducted without a sharp fall in stock prices without satisfying the requirements of market making or stabilization operations, and that there was also an unlawful purpose, and that this is distinguished from cross trading carried out through prior reporting. As to Defendant 2, the Supreme Court dismissed all grounds for final appeal, stating that errors of fact and other matters not raised as grounds for appeal cannot be raised as grounds for final appeal, and counted 100 days of the period of detention after the final appeal of Defendant 1 toward the principal sentence.

Distinguishing conditions

  • Where a third party merely acted as a messenger in delivering money and goods without the joint intent to commit the crime
  • Where the transaction is cross trading in which a securities company effects a large-volume trade after prior reporting
  • Where the trade is one intended to fix or stabilize market price and satisfies the requirements as to period, price, and subject, together with the reporting and disclosure procedures

Record verification notes

Before asserting the same criminal liability, it must first be checked whether the messenger participated in the conspiracy concerning the agreement to and distribution of the fee, and whether the trade in question was market making or cross trading that had undergone reporting and disclosure.

From the official text

Points at issue

[1] 알선행위의 당사자가 아닌 제3자가 당사자와 공동가공의 의사를 가지고 금품 기타 이익을 중간에서 전달한 경우, 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제7조 소정의 알선수재죄의 공동정범에 해당하는지 여부(적극) [2] 증권거래법 제188조의4 제1항 소정의 통정매매의 구성요건 및 같은 조 제3항에 의해 시장조작행위가 허용되기 위한 요건

Unofficial English translation

[1] Whether a third person who is not a party to an act of mediation falls within the joint principal offender of the crime of receiving money or valuables for mediation under Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, where such third person delivered money, other valuables, or other profits in between with the intent of a joint scheme with the party (affirmative) [2] The constituent elements of a matched order under Article 188-4 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act, and the requirements for market manipulation to be permitted under paragraph (3) of the same Article

Summary of the holding

[1] 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제7조 소정의 알선수재죄가 성립하려면 금융기관의 임·직원의 직무에 속한 사항의 알선에 관하여 금품 기타 이익을 수수·요구 또는 약속하거나 또는 제3자에게 이를 공여하게 하거나 공여하게 할 것을 요구 또는 약속하는 행위가 있어야 하므로, 단지 알선행위의 당사자가 아닌 제3자가 그 대가인 금품 기타 이익을 중간에서 전달한 것에 불과한 경우에는 그 자체로 위 알선수재죄의 구성요건에 해당한다고 할 수 없으나, 그 제3자가 알선행위의 당사자와 공동가공의 의사를 가지고 금품 기타 이익을 중간에서 전달한 때에는 그 전달행위는 위 알선수재죄의 실행행위에 관여한 것으로서 공동정범의 죄책을 면할 수 없다. [2] 증권거래법 제188조의4 제1항에서 금지하고 있는 시장조작행위의 일종인 통정매매는, 상장유가증권 또는 협회중개시장에 등록된 유가증권의 매매거래에 관하여 양 당사자가 미리 통정한 후 동일 유가증권에 대하여 같은 시기에 같은 가격으로 매수 또는 매도하는 행위로서, 당해 행위자에게 '그 거래가 성황을 이루고 있는 듯이 잘못 알게 하거나 기타 타인으로 하여금 그릇된 판단을 하게 할 목적'이라는 불법목적이 있어야 하는 반면, 이러한 시장조작행위라고 하더라도 유가증권의 시세를 고정시키거나 안정시킬 목적으로 하는 경우에는 같은 법 제188조의4 제3항에 의하여 기간·가격 및 주체 등에 관한 엄격한 조건하에 예외적으로 허용되고, 이때 그 증권회사는 안전조작 또는 시장조성에 관한 신고서 및 보고서를 제출하여야 하며 이를 제출받은 증권관리위원회와 증권거래소 또는 증권업협회는 그에 따른 공시절차를 거쳐야 한다.

Order

상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고 후 구금일수 중 100일을 피고인 1에 대한 본형에 산입한다.

Unofficial English translation

All appeals are dismissed. 100 days of the period of detention after the final appeal shall be counted as served in the sentence imposed on Defendant 1.

Provisions referred to

[1] 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제7조, 형법 제30조 [2] 증권거래법 제188조의4, 제207조의2 제2호, 증권거래법시행령 제83조의8, 제83조의9, 제83조의10, 제83조의11, 제83조의12, 제83조의13, 제83조의14

Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.

Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.

Back to the ledger
You are reading PRO SE
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com