Open Decision Ledger · Capital markets & finance
Establishment of the single comprehensive offense of market manipulation and the criminal liability, for the remaining offenses, of a person who withdrew from the accomplice relationship after partially carrying it out
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Jan. 13, 2011, 2010Do9927 (judgment)
Case name: 증권거래법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a defendant who carried out part of the market manipulation offenses forming a single comprehensive offense, and who then withdrew from the accomplice relationship upon being dismissed, also bear liability as a joint principal offender for the remaining market manipulation carried out by the other accomplices?
Holding
Market manipulation consisting of repeated false buy orders, high-priced buy orders, and matched orders constitutes a single comprehensive offense in violation of Article 188-4 of the former Securities and Exchange Act. The Supreme Court held that even a defendant who withdrew after partially carrying out the scheme bears liability for the market manipulation carried out by the remaining accomplices after the withdrawal, unless the defendant prevented the other accomplices from carrying out the crime.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
피고인이 포괄일죄의 관계에 있는 범행의 일부를 실행한 후 공범관계에서 이탈하였으나 다른 공범자에 의하여 나머지 범행이 이루어진 경우, 피고인이 관여하지 않은 부분에 대하여도 죄책을 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the defendant carried out part of the offenses standing in the relation of a single comprehensive offense and then withdrew from the accomplice relationship but the remainder of the offenses was committed by other accomplices, the defendant bears criminal liability also for the parts in which the defendant did not participate.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Stated in the decision
피고인이 다른 공범들의 범죄실행을 저지하지 않은 이상 그 이후 나머지 공범들이 행한 시세조종행위에 대하여도 죄책을 부담함에도
Unofficial English translation
notwithstanding that the defendant bears criminal liability also for the market manipulation practices carried out thereafter by the remaining joint offenders, insofar as the defendant did not prevent the other joint offenders from carrying out the crimes,
Factors
- 단일하고 계속된 범의 하에서 일정기간 계속하여 반복한 범행
- 유가증권 거래의 공정성 및 유통의 원활성 확보라는 사회적 법익
- 위 각 범행의 피해법익의 동일성도 인정되므로
- 피고인이 다른 공범들의 범죄실행을 저지하지 않은 이상
Unofficial English translation
• Offenses repeatedly carried out over a certain period under a single and continuous criminal intent
• The social legal interest of securing the fairness of securities transactions and the smoothness of their circulation
• since the identity of the legal interest infringed by each of the above offenses is also recognized
• insofar as the defendant did not prevent the other joint offenders from carrying out the crimes
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
[1][2] 대법원 2005. 4. 15. 선고 2005도630 판결
Unofficial English translation
[1][2] Supreme Court Decision 2005Do630 decided April 15, 2005
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2005. 4. 15. 선고 2005도630 판결 / [1] 대법원 2002. 6. 14. 선고 2002도1256 판결(공2002하, 1741), 대법원 2002. 7. 22. 선고 2002도1696 판결(공2002하, 2100), 대법원 2002. 7. 26. 선고 2001도4947 판결(공2002하, 2127), 대법원 2002. 7. 26. 선고 2002도1855 판결(공2002하, 2159), 대법원 2003. 12. 26. 선고 2003도6288 판결(공2004상, 321) / [2] 대법원 2002. 8. 27. 선고 2001도513 판결(공2002하, 2369)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What acts must an accomplice who has carried out part of a single comprehensive offense perform, so that the functional control over the acts already carried out is dissolved and the accomplice is relieved of liability for offenses committed after the withdrawal?
This reading will be checked again if the constituent elements of Article 176 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, or Supreme Court precedent on the withdrawal of an accomplice within a single comprehensive offense, is changed.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
In a comparison with an independent reading by another AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, while the readings diverged on the fourth axis (Form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Elements stated”
Attending to the concrete holding in the original text on the withdrawal after dismissal, it may be read as an application of the existing test, while attending to the conditions for assessing liability, namely partial execution and whether subsequent offenses were prevented, it may be read as stating elements.
피고인이 포괄일죄의 관계에 있는 범행의 일부를 실행한 후 공범관계에서 이탈하였으나 다른 공범자에 의하여 나머지 범행이 이루어진 경우, 피고인이 관여하지 않은 부분에 대하여도 죄책을 부담한다.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 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010No1784 pronounced July 21, 2010) recognized each act of market manipulation from around June 7, 2005 through around October 14, 2005 as a single comprehensive offense, yet upheld the first-instance judgment, which entered a judgment of not guilty for the later portion on the ground that the functional control over the market manipulation already carried out was dissolved merely because the defendant was dismissed on August 18, 2005 and thereby withdrew from the conspiracy relationship.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that, inasmuch as the defendant did not prevent the other accomplices from carrying out the crime, the defendant bore liability also for the market manipulation carried out by the remaining accomplices after August 18, 2005, and found that the judgment of the court below involved a misapprehension of legal principles concerning accomplices by conspiracy who are joint principal offenders. Because the portion found not guilty stood in a single comprehensive offense relationship with the portion found guilty, the Supreme Court reversed the entire judgment of the court below and remanded the case.
Distinguishing conditions
- Cases in which the withdrawing accomplice prevented the other accomplices from carrying out the crime, or removed the contribution the accomplice had provided, thereby dissolving the functional control
- Cases in which each act of market manipulation was not repeated under a single and continuing intent, and is therefore evaluated not as a single comprehensive offense but as separate crimes
- Cases in which the defendant withdrew from the conspiracy relationship before proceeding at all to the execution of the offenses
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, it must first be checked whether the market manipulation before and after the point of withdrawal forms a single comprehensive offense under a single intent and the same protected legal interest, and whether the Records contain the circumstance that the defendant, upon withdrawing, prevented the other accomplices' offenses or removed the defendant's own contribution.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 주식시세조종의 목적으로 허위매수주문행위, 고가매수주문행위 및 통정매매행위 등을 반복한 경우, 구 증권거래법 제188조의4 위반죄의 죄수 관계(=포괄일죄) [2] 피고인이 포괄일죄의 관계에 있는 범행의 일부를 실행한 후 공범관계에서 이탈하였으나 다른 공범자에 의하여 나머지 범행이 이루어진 경우, 피고인이 관여하지 않은 부분에 대하여도 죄책을 부담하는지 여부(적극) [3] 피고인이 다른 공범들과 특정 회사 주식의 시세조종 주문을 내기로 공모한 다음 시세조종행위의 일부를 실행한 후 공범관계로부터 이탈하였고, 다른 공범들이 그 이후의 나머지 시세조종행위를 계속한 사안에서, 피고인이 다른 공범들의 범죄실행을 저지하지 않은 이상 그 이후 나머지 공범들이 행한 시세조종행위에 대하여도 공동정범으로서의 죄책을 부담한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where fictitious purchase order practices, high-priced purchase order practices, and matched order practices, etc. are repeatedly carried out for the purpose of manipulating share prices, the concurrence of offenses for the crime of violating Article 188-4 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (= single comprehensive offense) [2] Where the defendant carried out part of the offenses standing in the relation of a single comprehensive offense and then withdrew from the accomplice relationship but the remainder of the offenses was committed by other accomplices, whether the defendant bears criminal liability also for the parts in which the defendant did not participate (affirmative) [3] A case where, the defendant having conspired with other joint offenders to place market manipulation orders in shares of a specific company and carried out part of the market manipulation practices, then withdrawing from the accomplice relationship, while the other joint offenders continued the remaining market manipulation practices thereafter, it was held that, insofar as the defendant did not prevent the other joint offenders from carrying out the crimes, the defendant bears liability as a joint principal offender also for the market manipulation practices carried out thereafter by the remaining joint offenders
Summary of the holding
[1] 주식시세조종의 목적으로 허위매수주문행위, 고가매수주문행위 및 통정매매행위 등을 반복한 경우, 이는 시세조종 등 불공정거래의 금지를 규정하고 있는 구 증권거래법(2007. 8. 3. 법률 제8635호 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제188조의4에 해당하는 수개의 행위를 단일하고 계속된 범의 하에서 일정기간 계속하여 반복한 범행이라 할 것이고, 이 범죄의 보호법익은 유가증권시장 또는 협회중개시장에서의 유가증권 거래의 공정성 및 유통의 원활성 확보라는 사회적 법익이고 각각의 유가증권 소유자나 발행자 등 개개인의 재산적 법익은 직접적인 보호법익이 아닌 점에 비추어 위 각 범행의 피해법익의 동일성도 인정되므로, 위 법 제188조의4에 정한 불공정거래행위금지 위반의 포괄일죄가 성립한다. [2] 피고인이 포괄일죄의 관계에 있는 범행의 일부를 실행한 후 공범관계에서 이탈하였으나 다른 공범자에 의하여 나머지 범행이 이루어진 경우, 피고인이 관여하지 않은 부분에 대하여도 죄책을 부담한다. [3] 피고인이 갑 투자금융회사에 입사하여 다른 공범들과 특정 회사 주식의 시세조종 주문을 내기로 공모한 다음 시세조종행위의 일부를 실행한 후 갑 회사로부터 해고를 당하여 공범관계로부터 이탈하였고, 다른 공범들이 그 이후의 나머지 시세조종행위를 계속한 사안에서, 피고인이 다른 공범들의 범죄실행을 저지하지 않은 이상 그 이후 나머지 공범들이 행한 시세조종행위에 대하여도 죄책을 부담함에도, 피고인이 해고되어 갑 회사를 퇴사함으로써 기존의 공모관계에서 이탈하였다는 사정만으로 피고인이 이미 실행한 시세조종행위에 대한 기능적 행위지배가 해소되었다고 보아 그 이후의 각 구 증권거래법(2007. 8. 3. 법률 제8635호 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 위반의 공소사실에 대하여 무죄를 선고한 원심판결에 공모공동정범에 관한 법리오해의 위법이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제37조, 구 증권거래법(2007. 8. 3. 법률 제8635호 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제188조의4 제1항 제1호, 제2호, 제2항 제1호(현행 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제176조 제1항 제1호, 제2호, 제2항 제1호 참조), 제207조의2 제1항 제2호(현행 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제443조 제1항 제4호, 제5호 참조) [2] 형법 제30조, 제37조 [3] 형법 제30조, 제37조, 구 증권거래법(2007. 8. 3. 법률 제8635호 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제188조의4 제1항 제1호, 제2호, 제2항 제1호(현행 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제176조 제1항 제1호, 제2호, 제2항 제1호 참조), 제207조의2 제1항 제2호(현행 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제443조 제1항 제4호, 제5호 참조)
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