A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (the 8th crime in its holding: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and the remaining crimes in its holding: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 10 months and fine for 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Each of the above types sentenced by the court below by the prosecutor is too unhued and unfair.

2. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s respective charges of sentencing together with each other; and (b) the form, method, frequency, etc. of each of the instant crimes; (c) the Defendant did not know about the period of repeated crime due to the same type of fraud, larceny, and intrusion upon residence; and (d) the Defendant committed most of the instant crimes at the same time, and did not agree with the victims.

However, considering all of the sentencing conditions stated in the pleadings of this case, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate, and is too heavy or too unreasonable, in the case of fraud against the victim S, the punishment should be determined in consideration of equity in the case of fraud, etc. with which the judgment becomes final and conclusive in the case of fraud against the victim S, and there is no change of circumstances to determine different from the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, each argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

[1] Article 32(1) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies”) provides that “The Financial Services Commission shall not, at intervals prescribed by Presidential Decree, violate the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, and the Acts and subordinate statutes prescribed by Presidential Decree in relation to finance” against the largest shareholder of a financial company subject to the relevant provision (hereinafter “subject to examination of qualifications”).