2. In full view of the provisions of Article 32(1), (4), and (5) of the Act on the Management of Financial Companies and Guarantee of Secrecy, the legislative purpose of Article 32(1) of the same Act is to maintain sound financial order and the soundness of the management of financial companies through a periodic examination of eligibility for examination.

In light of the above legislative purpose, it is reasonable to view that the provision on separate review and pronouncement under Article 32(6) is applicable only to the case where the defendant falls under the subject of examination of eligibility under Article 32(1) of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do21120, Mar. 15, 2018). In this case, there is no evidence suggesting that the defendant falls under the subject of examination of eligibility under Article 32(1) of the Act on the Structure of Financial Management and Capital Markets. Thus, the court below did not separately sentence the defendant as to the violation of the Act on the Management and Capital Markets and did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below, and thus, the prosecutor’s assertion is not acceptable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.