1. According to Article 32(6) and Article 32(1) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies and Article 5(29 of the Enforcement Decree as to the grounds for the prosecutor’s appeal, the crime of violating the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies should be tried and sentenced separately from other crimes. However, it is reasonable to view that the provisions of separate review and sentence under Article 32(6) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies apply only to cases where the defendant falls under the subject of 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.

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the grounds for appeal by the defendant, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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