The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above sentence shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date the above judgment became final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court, without applying Article 38 of the Criminal Act with respect to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, sentenced to separate punishment, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the scope of application under Article 32(6) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies”).

2) The sentence of the lower court (10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1 in its holding, and 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 2 in its holding) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant

A. The lower court did not apply Article 38 of the Criminal Act to a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (the second crime as indicated in the lower judgment) pursuant to Article 32(6) and (1) of the Act on the Structural Control of Financial Companies and Article 5 subparag. 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but did not apply to a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (the second crime as indicated in the lower judgment), and deemed to have sentenced 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the first crime as indicated in the lower judgment, and 4 months of imprisonment for

B. Article 32(1) of the Act on the Management of Financial Companies provides that the Financial Services Commission shall, at intervals prescribed by Presidential Decree, examine whether one of the largest shareholders of a financial company subject to the pertinent provision (hereinafter “persons subject to examination of qualifications”) is in violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, and the Acts and subordinate statutes related to finance, etc. prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter “requirements for the maintenance of qualifications”).

Paragraph 4 of the same Article, the Financial Services Commission, as a result of the examination under paragraph 1, finds that the person subject to examination of qualifications fails to meet the requirements for maintaining eligibility.

, if it is deemed that the person subject to eligibility screening may be ordered to take certain measures to ensure the soundness of the financial company’s management.

The Act stipulates.

In addition, Section 5 of the same article is applicable.