Open Decision Ledger · Capital markets & finance
Criminal liability for using undisclosed information where an officer or employee sells treasury shares in the corporation's business, and application of the law at the time of the act without amending the indictment
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Apr. 12, 2002, 2000Do3350 (judgment)
Case name: 증권거래법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under the former Securities and Exchange Act, is an officer, employee, or agent of a corporation also punishable where the officer, employee, or agent uses undisclosed information and sells treasury shares in the corporation's business, and, even though the prosecution sought application of the new Act, may the court apply the former Act without amending the indictment?
Holding
The former Act placed no restriction on the act of use, whether on one's own account or on another's account, and its dual punishment provision also prescribed the punishment of the actor, so an officer, employee, or agent who sells treasury shares in the corporation's business is of course punishable. The Supreme Court held that, where there is no difference in the severity of the statutory penalties, the court may apply the law at the time of the act, namely the former Act, without amending the indictment.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
당해 법인의 임직원 또는 대리인이 미공개정보를 이용하여 법인의 업무에 관하여 자사의 주식을 매각하는 경우에도 그 법인의 임직원 또는 대리인은 당연히 형사처벌되는 것이라 할 것이므로
Unofficial English translation
even where an officer, employee, or agent of the corporation concerned uses unpublished information to sell the corporation's own shares in connection with the corporation's work, the officer, employee, or agent of the corporation concerned is of course subject to criminal punishment, so
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그 범행에 대한 형의 경중의 차이가 없으면 피고인의 방어권 행사에 실질적으로 불이익을 초래할 우려도 없어
Unofficial English translation
if there is no difference in the severity of the punishment for such crime, there is no risk of substantially causing disadvantage to the exercise of the defendant's right of defense
Factors
- 자신의 이익을 추구할 목적으로 자기의 계산으로 하는 것이든
- 당해 법인에게 이익이 귀속될 자사주식의 처분처럼 타인의 이익을 위하여 타인의 계산으로 하는 것이든
- 법원이 인정하는 범죄사실이 공소사실과 차이가 없이 동일한 경우
- 그 범행에 대한 형의 경중의 차이가 없으면
Unofficial English translation
• whether it is done for the purpose of pursuing one's own interest on one's own account,
• whether it is done on another's account for the benefit of another, as in the disposition of treasury shares from which profit accrues to the corporation concerned,
• where the fact of the crime as found by the court is identical to the fact charged in the indictment, without any difference,
• if there is no difference in the severity of the punishment for such crime,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1976. 11. 23. 선고 75도363 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 75Do363 decided November 23, 1976
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 1976. 11. 23. 선고 75도363 판결(공1977, 9637), 대법원 1992. 6. 23. 선고 92도954 판결(공1992, 2321)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Even where there is a difference in the statutory penalties before and after the amendment, may the court apply the law at the time of the act without amending the indictment, and how is the resulting detriment to the right of defense assessed at that point?
This reading is checked again when dealing with cases in which the class of persons prohibited from using undisclosed information or the structure of the dual punishment provision is amended again, or in which the severity of the penalties changes.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
A comparison with an independent reading by another line of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, showed agreement on 7 of the 8 axes, with the readings diverging on the eighth axis (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Even where there is a difference in the statutory penalties before and after the amendment, may the court apply the law at the time of the act without amending the indictment, and how is the resulting detriment to the right of defense assessed at that point?” vs Independent “May the former Act be applied without amending the indictment even in cases where the severity of the penalties under the new and former Acts is the same but a substantive difference arises in the content of the defendant's defense?”
The primary reading asks about cases in which the statutory penalties change, while the independent reading asks about cases in which the severity of the penalties is the same but the content of the defense differs.
당해 법인의 임직원 또는 대리인이 미공개정보를 이용하여 법인의 업무에 관하여 자사의 주식을 매각하는 경우에도 그 법인의 임직원 또는 대리인은 당연히 형사처벌되는 것이라 할 것이므로Raw 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 the facts charged in the indictment established and treated the defendants' conduct as a violation of Article 188-2, paragraph (1), subparagraph 1 of the former Act. It rejected the defense counsel's argument that the corporation's agents or executive officers were not punishable before the amendment, reasoning that the enumeration of the 'relevant corporation' as a subject in the amended provision merely added corporations as additional objects of punishment, and it applied the former Act without any procedure to amend the indictment.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court approved the assessment of the court below, citing the fact that the former Act did not distinguish whether the calculation was one's own or another's and that Article 215 prescribed the punishment of the actor; it further held that, because the statutory penalty under the penal provision of Article 207-2, subparagraph 1 had not changed between the time of the act and the time of trial, the measure applying the former Act without amending the indictment was also proper, and it dismissed all of the final appeals.
Distinguishing conditions
- Cases in which there is a difference in the severity of the punishment, such as the statutory penalty under the penal provision, before and after the amendment
- Cases in which the criminal facts found by the court are not identical to the facts charged in the indictment, so that a substantive detriment to the defendant's right of defense may arise
- Cases in which the actor is not an officer, employee, or agent of the corporation, or the transaction does not concern the corporation's business
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one must first check whether the statutory penalties under the law at the time of the act and the law at the time of trial are in fact the same, and whether the actor used undisclosed information in the actor's capacity as an insider under the former Act with respect to the corporation's business.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 증권거래법하에서 법인의 임직원이 미공개정보를 이용하여 법인의 업무에 관하여 자사주식을 매각한 경우, 그 법인의 임직원의 가벌성 여부(적극) [2] 법률의 개정 전후를 통하여 형의 경중의 차이가 없는 경우 검사가 개정 후 신법의 적용을 구하였더라도 법원이 공소장변경절차 없이 행위시법인 구법을 적용할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether an officer or employee of a corporation may be punished under the former Securities and Exchange Act where the officer or employee of the corporation used unpublished information to sell the corporation's own shares in connection with the corporation's work (affirmative) [2] Where there is no difference in the severity of the punishment before and after the amendment of the statute, whether the court may apply the former Act, the law at the time of the act, without a procedure for amendment of the indictment, even though the prosecutor sought the application of the new Act as amended (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 증권거래법(1999. 2. 1. 법률 제5736호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제188조의2 제1항 제1호에서 말하는 임직원의 미공개정보 이용행위는 그것이 자신의 이익을 추구할 목적으로 자기의 계산으로 하는 것이든 또는 당해 법인에게 이익이 귀속될 자사주식의 처분처럼 타인의 이익을 위하여 타인의 계산으로 하는 것이든 아무런 제한을 두고 있지 아니하였던 데다가 같은 법 제215조가 법인의 대표자, 대리인·사용인 기타 종업원이 그 법인의 업무에 관하여 제207조의2의 위반행위를 한 때에 행위자를 벌하도록 규정한 것을 보면 당해 법인의 임직원 또는 대리인이 미공개정보를 이용하여 법인의 업무에 관하여 자사의 주식을 매각하는 경우에도 그 법인의 임직원 또는 대리인은 당연히 형사처벌되는 것이라 할 것이므로, 개정된 법률에서 미공개정보 이용행위금지의 주체로 법인을 추가하고 당해 법인의 금지위반행위를 처벌의 대상으로 삼게 되었다고 하여 구법의 규정을 달리 볼 수는 없다. [2] 법원이 인정하는 범죄사실이 공소사실과 차이가 없이 동일한 경우에는 비록 검사가 재판시법인 개정 후 신법의 적용을 구하였더라도 그 범행에 대한 형의 경중의 차이가 없으면 피고인의 방어권 행사에 실질적으로 불이익을 초래할 우려도 없어 공소장 변경절차를 거치지 않고도 정당하게 적용되어야 할 행위시법인 구법을 적용할 수 있다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 증권거래법(1999. 2. 1. 법률 제5736호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제188조의2 제1항 제1호, 제207조의2, 제215조 [2] 형법 제1조 제1항, 형사소송법 제254조, 제298조
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