A. The lower court, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, tried separately on the facts charged of the violation of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Act”) related to finance under the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Act”) and sentenced the charges of the violation of the Act on Financial Business Specializing in Credit, and sentenced a separate sentence. However, the lower court deemed the same as concurrent crimes with other crimes and sentenced a single

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, if we consider the purport of Article 32(6) of the Act on the Structures and Structures and the systematic and reasonable interpretation of the relevant provisions in light of the following circumstances, the separate review and sentence under Article 32(6) of the Act does not apply to the violation of all finance-related Acts and subordinate statutes, but it is reasonable to view that the defendant is subject to examination of eligibility under Article 32(1) of the Act, i.e., the largest shareholder of the financial company, and the case where the defendant is the largest shareholder.

In this case, there is no evidence to deem the Defendant to be subject to examination of eligibility under Article 32(1) of the Act. Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violation of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business.

① Article 31 of the Act provides for the requirements for approval of change to a person who intends to become a major shareholder (a major shareholder of a financial company is divided into the largest shareholder and a major shareholder according to Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Act) by acquiring or taking over shares issued by the financial company.

In this regard, Article 32 of the Act provides for separate requirements for maintaining eligibility for one of the largest shareholders of a financial company which acquired the status of a major shareholder through the approval of change in accordance with Article 31 of the Act.

(2) The Act shall provide for the separate review and pronouncement under Article 31, and Article 32 shall not take the form in which such provision applies mutatis mutandis, but shall have the provisions for separate review and pronouncement under Article 31.