[Reporter’s Notebook] Retail Investors Say, “I Wish My Account Was Used Too” After Mrs. Kim’s Non-Prosecution

“I wish my account could be used too. If I could earn 2.3 billion won.”, “Only possible if the spouse is a prosecutor or the son-in-law...”

These were the titles and comments heating up the stock bulletin board right after the announcement of the non-prosecution decision in the case of Kim Geon-hee’s alleged price manipulation of Deutsche Motors. The prosecution defined the substance of this case as “Mrs. Kim’s account being used by Kwon Oh-soo.” Is it true that Mrs. Kim’s account was used? Is she really an investor with low market understanding?

At that time, Mrs. Kim focused on small-cap stocks in the KOSDAQ market. In 2010, the total market capitalization of the KOSDAQ market was 95.8 trillion won. Deutsche Motors, with a market cap around 30 billion won at the time, was considered a so-called junk stock. It was not even the exclusive importer of BMW. Its growth potential was also unclear. Nevertheless, Mrs. Kim concentrated about 4 billion won in that stock. Even for an asset owner like Mrs. Kim, this was not a small amount. On 4 out of 5 trading days, she traded more than 30% of Deutsche Motors’ daily trading volume. She also invested in bonds with warrants (BW) and participated in off-market block deals. She sold Taekwang ENC and Woori Technology, which were considered manipulated stocks, and made profits.

Is it reasonable to consider a market participant showing such investment patterns as “having low understanding of the stock market” and thus unable to recognize price manipulation? Mrs. Kim accounted for 44.4% of Deutsche Motors’ daily trading volume. There were collusive trades and fake orders in that stock. According to the Korea Exchange’s abnormal trading psychological analysis, she also gained 2.3 billion won in profits. If it had been another suspect, would the prosecution have decided not to indict?

Earlier, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced defendant A in 2013 to 2 years and 6 months in prison with 4 years probation for violating the Capital Markets Act and confiscated 225.11 million won of illicit gains. A, who invested 600 million won in stocks, had no testimony of accomplice involvement. However, the prosecution indicted him. At that time, the court ruled, “Even if there was no overall conspiracy process, if the parties sequentially or tacitly communicate and form a consensus of intention, a conspiracy relationship is established.”

Citizens who learned of A’s case are questioning the prosecution’s judgment. When the opposition party mentioned this ruling at the National Assembly audit on the 18th, Seoul Central District Prosecutor Lee Chang-soo explained, “Unlike Mrs. Kim, A was an acquaintance of the main manipulator’s driver, so the situation was different.” How can it be explained that Mrs. Kim was also frequently in contact with former Chairman Kwon, who was at the top of the main manipulator?

“Investigations must seize the situation early and hunt like a leopard.”

This was a remark made by President Yoon Seok-yeol during his time as a prosecutor at a National Assembly audit. It emphasized flawless, meticulous investigations. Many question why other suspects are thoroughly investigated while the president’s spouse is treated leniently. Why is the prosecution so strict with dead power but gentle like a spring breeze with living power? Will the prosecution be able to resolve public doubts at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office audit on the 21st? The question is whether the prosecution truly judged this case solely based on evidence and legal principles without any consideration.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.