A. The judgment of the court below that imposed a single punishment on the crime of violation of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies with which the prosecutor's misapprehension of the legal principles or the illegal assertion of sentencing was made pursuant to Article 32 (6) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter "the Act") should be sentenced separately from the crime of fraud, such as computer, etc. in its holding, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles and the sentencing affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s punishment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable for the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing.

2. Unlike Article 31 of the Act that 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 largest shareholder and the major shareholder) by acquiring shares issued by the financial company to determine the misapprehension of the legal doctrine of the prosecutor, Article 32 of the Act provides for the requirements for maintaining eligibility for one largest shareholder among the largest shareholders of the financial company that has already acquired the status as a major shareholder through the above approval of change, and Article 32 of the Act does not provide for separate review and determination under Article 31 of the Act, and Article 32 of the Act does not provide for separate review and determination under Article 32 of the Act, and Article 32 of the Act does not provide for separate review and determination under Article 32 of the Act, and Article 32 of the Act provides for separate review and determination under Article 32 of the Act, and Article 32 (6) of the Act provides for a separate provision under Article 2 (1) of the Act, which provides that "in its form, it is necessary for prompt review and determination under Article 32 (1) of the Act.