According to Article 32(6) and (1) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Financial Control Act”) and Article 5 subparag. 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a violation of the Act on Financial Business Specializing in Credit must be tried and sentenced separately from other crimes. However, it is reasonable to view that Article 32(6) of the Act on the Management of Financial Services and Capital Markets applies only to cases where a defendant is subject to examination of eligibility under Article 32(1) of the same Act.

Therefore, even according to the record, there is no evidence to view that the defendant constitutes subject to examination of eligibility under Article 32(1) of the Act on the Management of Financial Companies. Thus, it is justifiable that the court below did not separately examine and decide on the defendant's violation of the Act on the Management of Financial Companies and other crimes among the facts charged in this case.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 32(6) of the Act on the Management of Financial Companies.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.