The punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unhued and unfair.

The sentence of the lower court (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Unlike Article 31 of the Act, Article 32 of the Act provides for the requirements for approval of change to a person who intends to become a major shareholder (the major shareholder of a financial company is divided into the major shareholder and the major shareholder) by acquiring or taking over shares issued by a financial company to determine the violation of laws and regulations of the public prosecutor, Article 32 of the Act provides for the requirements for the maintenance of qualifications for one largest shareholder among the major shareholders of the financial company which acquired the status of a major shareholder after obtaining approval of change.

Article 32 (1) of the Act provides for separate hearings and rulings under Article 31 and Article 32 (3) of the Act does not provide for separate hearings and rulings under Article 31, but provides for separate hearings and rulings under Article 32 only under Article 32 without any provision for separate hearings and rulings under Article 31; Article 32 (6) of the Act provides for "crimes resulting from a violation of Acts and subordinate statutes stipulated in Article 2 (7)" not "crimes resulting from a violation of Acts and subordinate statutes stipulated in Article 2 (1)" in its form; Article 32 (1) of the Act provides for "crimes resulting from a violation of Acts and subordinate statutes stipulated in Article 32 (1) of the Act; in order to examine the requirements for maintaining eligibility under Article 32 (1) of the Act, separate penalties should be imposed on the violation of the finance-related Acts and subordinate statutes; and the examination is conducted at the same time (two years at present). It takes into account the systematic, rational interpretation of the provisions related to the purport of Article 32 (