|Soonghee Lee||Hyun Suk Jung|
In response to the above claims, the defendants responded as follows: (i) the services that the defendants provided are a form of direct market access (DMA) service that are not only allowed worldwide, but which are widespread; (ii) it is a common practice even in Korea for a securities firm to provide a system with faster processing speed for some of the orders, and this is a fact well known to investors. The Supreme Court's decision stated the following: (i) there is no such principle that requires parity in the speed of processing orders; (ii) it is not found that the securities firms provided the scalpers with faster services clandestinely; (iii) there is no risk that the faster services at issue may endanger the profit of other investors; (iv) given that there is no technological method for synchronising the speed of the services, if criminal liabilities are imposed on the acts of the present case, not only would it not solve the problem, but it would further compound the chaos and indiscriminately have a negative effect on various services that may be introduced as a result of development in telecommunications technology.
Critics of the Supreme Court's decisions argued that DMA regulations have become prevalent worldwide. This is based on the International Organization of Securities Commissions requiring the same processing speed of electronic orders for all customers (1990) and the announcement of DMA regulations by the US Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 2010. However, securities firms expect no further issues as long as they sufficiently inform customers of the differing speeds of their services.
Soonghee Lee and Hyun Suk Jung