本文以杭萧钢构案的刑事判决为基础，对杭萧钢构案涉及的相关问题进行了具体分析。首先，本案涉及了内幕交易案件认定中的几个核心问题，包括内幕信息的形成，内幕人的界定及内幕交易行为的认定等。认定内幕信息时，应参考美国、欧盟及台湾地区等的做法，在涵盖范围上采广义，而从重大性和非公开性上对其进行限定；重大性应借鉴美国、欧盟等的做法采多重判断标准；在非公开性上，则应对何为公开进行具体的规定，并对相应的报备制度规定相对具体的期限。我国内幕人包括内幕信息知情人及非法获取内幕信息的人，针对前者本文主要探讨了对公司普通雇员及公司高级管理人员的界定，而对后者的理解则主要体现在对何为“非法获取”的理解上，我国并未对何为“非法获取”进行具体的规定，但美国的“信息传递理论”却与中国的“非法获取”有着异曲同工之妙，台湾地区对相关理论已有所吸收，值得我国借鉴。在对内幕交易行为的界定上，美国将主观动机作为判定的要素之一，并将“特殊关系”作为获取个人利益的重要标志之一，对我国有很强的参考价值。我国规定的内幕交易行为包括三种表现形式，而对三种形式在惩罚力度上并不相同，对表现形式的认定就决定了对行为性质及惩罚力度的认定。本案中的36万元应该属于内幕交易违法所得，而罗高峰买卖其姑姑帐户的行为性质应属于内幕交易行为。其次，本文探讨了内幕交易行为的法律责任，在刑事责任的认定中，对罗高峰的责任认定过轻，而法院关于非法所得额的认定则存在矛盾之处。行政责任的认定对高效处理内幕交易案件具有重要意义，但在我国却没有被充分利用。民事责任是对投资者最直接也是最有利的保护，但我国的司法者和执法者却无法可依，缺乏相应的认定方式和认定程序的指导，因此急需出台相应的法律法规和司法解释。

The thesis analyzes the relevant questions in detail based on the criminal judgments. First of all, this case refers to several core questions in the subject of insider trading including the formation of insider information, the scope of the insiders and the definition of insider trading. When speaking of the scope of the insider information, we should learn from U.S., the European Union and the district of Taiwan to adopt a wide definition and limit it through the judgment of materiality and publicity. To judge the materiality, we should follow the American way and the European way to take multiple standards rather than one standard. And the publicity should be given a more specific period. As to the definition of the insiders, we should also know the meaning of “unlawfully obtained” in china, since we do not have the exact definition we had better refer to the “tipper-tippee theory” of U.S. which has been absorbed by the district of Taiwan. The subjective motivation is treated to be an important factor on identifying the manner of insider trading which is completely different from china, and the “special relationship” is taken as individual benefit which is also worth us following. Three kinds of manners are recognized as insider trading in china which is treated different from each other when deciding if it is insider trading or not and how the insider should be punished. The conclusion is that the 3.6 million should be counted in the illegal gains and Mr. Luo should be recognized as an insider who has conducted insider trading. Also, the thesis mentions the liability of insider trading including criminal responsibility, administrative responsibility and civil liability. Mr. Luo has been given a lighter responsibility than he should be and the illegal gains might have been counted in a conflict way by the court. The administrative responsibility is considered to be the most efficient way of punishing the manner of insider trading; however it has not been fully used in china. And the civil liability is considered to be the best way of protecting the investors which is also the most direct way, however the fact is that we do not have the corresponding laws and regulations even judicial interpretations in china about this subject which has been becoming more and more urgent.