2. In light of the circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, even if there is no change in circumstances that may be considered in sentencing after the lower judgment, and the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of this case are considered.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 32(1) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that the requirements for maintaining eligibility shall be examined as to one of the largest shareholders of a financial company, such as violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, and the Acts and subordinate statutes prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 32(6) of the Act provides that a person who concurrently commits offenses against the violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes prescribed in Article 32(1) and other offences shall be tried and sentenced separately, notwithstanding Article 38 of the Criminal Act. Of the grounds for the punishment of this case, the Act on Special Cases of Credit Industry, among the Acts and subordinate statutes on the punishment of this case, separates the status of the largest shareholder from those of the financial company from those of the major shareholder, and separates the status of the major shareholder from those of Article 32(1) of the Act from those of Article 27(3) of the Act.