Criteria for determining whether providing speed convenience services to a specific investor constitutes improper means under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act

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 (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on the 8th axis (Open question and revisit condition).

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 held that it is difficult to regard the defendants' act of trading ELWs after being provided speed convenience services as an act using an improper means, scheme, or artifice, citing the facts that there was no criterion for the time of acceptance of orders received in different manners and that having them executed in order of receipt was in fact impossible, that statutes and official documents of the regulator contained no clear reference to speed differences or to DMA-method order acceptance, that the regulator was also permitting the DMA method, and that general investors could foresee the possibility of discrimination arising from speed-related services. In addition, with respect to the 300 million won received by Defendant 4, it recognized the relation to duties and the quid pro quo, and it affirmed the first-instance judgment that found not guilty certain receipts of money and goods, including the 170 million won received thereafter, as well as the parts concerning market price manipulation, deception, and use of undisclosed information.

Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court, after confirming the meaning of improper means and setting out the factors to be considered where investment opportunities, etc. are provided only to a specific investor, held the court below's determination to be proper in light of that legal principle and the Records. It accepted none of the final appeals of the prosecution and Defendants 1, 2, and 4, and thus left the determination of the court below intact.

Distinguishing conditions

• Where the provision of trading means to a specific investor is expressly prohibited by statutes or supervisory regulations
• Cases where the possibility of speed discrimination was not disclosed to general investors or could not have been foreseen
• Cases where an unfair allocation of the order process at a stage after the external interface server connected to the exchange created a difference in speed

Record verification notes

Before asserting the same conclusion, it should be checked whether the provision of the service was permitted by the regulator at the time, whether there was a concrete risk of causing loss by infringing upon the investment opportunities of other general investors, and whether there are circumstances warranting a finding that trust in the fairness of transactions was seriously impaired.

From the official text

Points at issue

구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제178조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 ‘부정한 수단, 계획 또는 기교’의 의미 및 금융투자업자 등이 특정 투자자에 대하여만 투자기회 또는 거래수단을 제공한 행위가 부정한 수단 등에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준

Summary of the holding

구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률(2013. 5. 28. 법률 제11845호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 자본시장법’이라 한다) 제178조 제1항 제1호는 금융투자상품의 매매, 그 밖의 거래와 관련하여 ‘부정한 수단, 계획 또는 기교를 사용하는 행위’를 금지하고 있는데, 여기서 ‘부정한 수단, 계획 또는 기교’란 사회통념상 부정하다고 인정되는 일체의 수단, 계획 또는 기교를 말한다. 나아가 어떠한 행위를 부정하다고 할지는 그 행위가 법령 등에서 금지된 것인지, 다른 투자자들로 하여금 잘못된 판단을 하게 함으로써 공정한 경쟁을 해치고 선의의 투자자에게 손해를 전가하여 자본시장의 공정성, 신뢰성 및 효율성을 해칠 위험이 있는지를 고려해야 할 것인데, 금융투자업자 등이 특정 투자자에 대하여만 투자기회 또는 거래수단을 제공한 경우에는 그 금융거래시장의 특성과 거래참여자의 종류와 규모, 거래의 구조와 방식, 특정 투자자에 대하여만 투자기회 등을 제공하게 된 동기와 방법, 이로 인하여 다른 일반투자자들의 투자기회 등을 침해함으로써 다른 일반투자자들에게 손해를 초래할 위험이 있는지 여부, 이와 같은 행위로 인하여 금융상품 거래의 공정성에 대한 투자자들의 신뢰가 중대하게 훼손되었다고 볼 수 있는지 등의 사정을 구 자본시장법의 목적·취지에 비추어 종합적으로 고려하여 판단하여야 한다.

Order

상고를 모두 기각한다.

Provisions referred to

구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률(2013. 5. 28. 법률 제11845호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제178조 제1항 제1호, 제443조 제1항 제8호