Open Decision Ledger · Capital markets & finance
Whether a Second Recipient of Unpublished Information May Be Punished for Using That Information and the Scope of Accomplice Liability with the First Recipient
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, July 11, 2019, 2017Do9087 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 자본시장과금융투자업에관한법률위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May a second recipient who received unpublished internal information from the first recipient be punished for violating Article 174(1) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, or be punished as an accomplice of the first recipient?
Holding
The act of use by a second recipient who received the information on an occasion different from the first receipt is not punishable under that provision. Even where it constitutes conspiracy, instigation, or aiding under the General Part of the Criminal Act, the second recipient cannot be punished as an accomplice of the first recipient. However, the Supreme Court held that if the second recipient jointly participated in an act of immediately using the information for a transaction at the stage where the first recipient first received the information, the second recipient may be punished as an accomplice.
Points at issue, verbatim
내부자로부터 미공개 내부정보를 전달받은 제1차 정보수령자로부터 1차 정보수령과는 다른 기회에 미공개 내부정보를 다시 전달받은 제2차 정보수령자 이후의 사람이 유가증권의 매매 기타의 거래와 관련하여 당해 정보를 이용하거나 다른 사람에게 이용하게 하는 행위를 위 규정으로 처벌할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
whether a person who is subsequent to a second recipient of information and who, on an occasion different from the first receipt of information, has again received undisclosed inside information from a first recipient of information who received the undisclosed inside information from an insider, and who uses such information in connection with the trading of securities or other transactions, or causes another person to use it, may be punished under the above provisions (negative)
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고인 1에 대한 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울남부지방법원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 1 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of the Seoul Southern District Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
앞서 본 사실관계를 위 법리에 비추어 살펴보면
Unofficial English translation
Examining the facts as stated above in light of the foregoing legal principle,
Factors
- 1차 정보수령과는 다른 기회에 미공개 내부정보를 다시 전달받은 제2차 정보수령자
- 1차 정보수령 후에 미공개 내부정보를 전달받아 이용한 경우
- 1차로 정보를 받은 단계에서 그 정보를 거래에 곧바로 이용하는 행위에 제2차 정보수령자가 공동 가담한 경우
- 준내부자로부터 미공개 내부정보를 수령한 제1차 정보수령자
Unofficial English translation
• a second recipient of information who again received undisclosed inside information on an occasion different from the first receipt of information
• where the undisclosed inside information was received and used after the first receipt of information
• where, at the stage of first receiving the information, the second recipient of information jointly participated in the act of immediately using that information in a transaction
• a first recipient of information who received undisclosed inside information from a quasi-insider
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2009. 12. 10. 선고 2008도6953 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6953 decided December 10, 2009
Decisions referred to
[1][2][3] 대법원 2009. 12. 10. 선고 2008도6953 판결(공2010상, 176) / [1][2] 대법원 2002. 1. 25. 선고 2000도90 판결(공2002상, 616)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Up to what point may the specific circumstances be regarded as showing that the second recipient jointly participated in the act of immediate use at the stage where the first recipient first received the information?
This reading is checked again when examining whether the scope of persons subject to Article 174(1) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, or the provisions punishing recipients of information, are differently provided in the amended Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
When compared with an independent reading by another AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 6 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on Axis 4 (Form of the test) and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The Holdings divide the possibility of punishment according to the time of receipt of the information and whether there was joint participation, and the disposition orders a partial reversal and remand; accordingly, if the punishment conditions are emphasized, it may be read as Elements stated, and if the outcome of the case is emphasized, it may be read as Existing test applied.
제1차 정보수령자가 1차로 정보를 받은 단계에서 그 정보를 거래에 곧바로 이용하는 행위에 제2차 정보수령자가 공동 가담한 경우Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Up to what point may the specific circumstances be regarded as showing that the second recipient jointly participated in the act of immediate use at the stage where the first recipient first received the information?” vs Independent “How will the joint participation of Defendant 1 and the second recipient, and the consequent scope of Defendant 1's ultimate liability, be determined in the remand trial?”
The primary reading asks about the general factual criteria for recognizing joint participation, while the independent reading asks about whether joint participation is recognized in the remand trial and about the scope of Defendant 1's ultimate liability.
내부자로부터 미공개 내부정보를 전달받은 제1차 정보수령자로부터 1차 정보수령과는 다른 기회에 미공개 내부정보를 다시 전달받은 제2차 정보수령자 이후의 사람이 유가증권의 매매 기타의 거래와 관련하여 당해 정보를 이용하거나 다른 사람에게 이용하게 하는 행위를 위 규정으로 처벌할 수 있는지 여부(소극)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 acquitted the defendants of the facts charged against Defendant 2 and of the part of Defendant 1's charges concerning Non-indicted 1 company, holding that the defendants did not fall under first recipients and that the sharing of transaction funds or the distribution of profits was also difficult to find. On the other hand, with respect to the part of Defendant 1's charges concerning Non-indicted 9 company, on the premise that Defendant 1 and Non-indicted 2 stood in an accomplice relationship, the court below held that Defendant 1 caused his or her accomplice Non-indicted 2 to have another person use the information, and thus sustained the guilty verdict.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecution's final appeal against the not guilty portion. It recognized that Defendant 1 was a first recipient who received information from Non-indicted 4, a quasi-insider, and that the information in this case was material information. However, it found it difficult to recognize that Defendant 1 merely passed the information on to Non-indicted 2 and that Defendant 1 traded directly or jointly participated in the immediate use at the stage of the first receipt of the information. Accordingly, holding that the determination of the court below, premised on an accomplice relationship, involved a misapprehension of legal principles, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the guilty portion.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the second recipient jointly participated in the act of immediately using the information for a transaction at the stage where the first recipient first received the information
- A case in which the person passing on the information is not the first recipient but the insider or the quasi-insider himself or herself, and thus directly falls under the persons subject to each subparagraph of Article 174(1)
- A case to which the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act as amended on December 30, 2014 applies, so that the persons subject to the provision and the scope of punishment are differently provided
Record verification notes
Before denying the second recipient's accomplice liability, first check whether the information was passed on at the same occasion as the first receipt, and whether there are circumstances showing joint participation, such as the sharing of transaction funds or the distribution of profits.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제443조, 제174조 제1항의 취지 / 내부자로부터 미공개 내부정보를 전달받은 제1차 정보수령자로부터 1차 정보수령과는 다른 기회에 미공개 내부정보를 다시 전달받은 제2차 정보수령자 이후의 사람이 유가증권의 매매 기타의 거래와 관련하여 당해 정보를 이용하거나 다른 사람에게 이용하게 하는 행위를 위 규정으로 처벌할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 제2차 정보수령자가 내부자로부터 미공개 내부정보를 수령한 제1차 정보수령자로부터 1차 정보수령 후에 미공개 내부정보를 전달받아 이용한 경우, 제2차 정보수령자를 제1차 정보수령자의 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제174조 제1항 위반죄의 공범으로 처벌할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [3] 준내부자로부터 미공개 내부정보를 수령한 제1차 정보수령자가 1차로 정보를 받은 단계에서 그 정보를 거래에 곧바로 이용하는 행위에 제2차 정보수령자가 공동 가담한 경우, 제2차 정보수령자를 제1차 정보수령자의 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제174조 제1항 위반죄의 공범으로 처벌할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] the purport of Articles 443 and 174 (1) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act / whether a person who is subsequent to a second recipient of information and who, on an occasion different from the first receipt of information, has again received undisclosed inside information from a first recipient of information who received the undisclosed inside information from an insider, and who uses such information in connection with the trading of securities or other transactions, or causes another person to use it, may be punished under the above provisions (negative) [2] where a second recipient of information received the undisclosed inside information from a first recipient of information who received the undisclosed inside information from an insider, after the first receipt of information, and used it, whether the second recipient of information may be punished as an accomplice to the first recipient's offense of violating Article 174 (1) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (negative) [3] where a first recipient of information who received undisclosed inside information from a quasi-insider, at the stage of first receiving the information, immediately used that information in a transaction and the second recipient of information jointly participated in that act, whether the second recipient of information may be punished as an accomplice to the first recipient's offense of violating Article 174 (1) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결 중 피고인 1에 대한 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울남부지방법원 합의부에 환송한다. 검사의 무죄 부분에 대한 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 1 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of the Seoul Southern District Court. The prosecutor's appeal as to the not guilty portion is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률(2014. 12. 30. 법률 제12947호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제174조 제1항, 제443조 [2] 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률(2014. 12. 30. 법률 제12947호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제174조 제1항, 제443조, 형법 제30조 [3] 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률(2014. 12. 30. 법률 제12947호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제174조 제1항, 제443조, 형법 제30조
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