The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. According to Article 32(6) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies Violating Acts and subordinate statutes (hereinafter “Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies”), the lower court, which sentenced the Defendant’s violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and other crimes, should be tried separately from each of the instant crimes. However, the lower court’s judgment that sentenced the Defendant’s violation of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies is unlawful.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (20 million won in penalty, confiscation) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The criminal facts of the Defendant’s violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes include the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. According to Articles 5 subparag. 37 and 27(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Management of Private Financial Transactions, the Electronic Financial Transactions Act constitutes the statutes related to finance under Article 32(1) of the Act on the Management of Private Financial Transactions, i.e., “finance-related Acts and subordinate statutes”.

Therefore, according to Article 32(6) and Article 32(1) of the Act on the Management of Financial Companies, the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act should be tried and sentenced separately from other crimes. However, there is no evidence to view that the defendant is subject to examination of eligibility under Article 32(1) of the Act on the Management of Financial Companies.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which did not separate the defendant from the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and did not err in violation of the Act.

The prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. Sentencing unfair Defendant was punished as a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and committed each of the instant crimes during the repeated crime period. However, considering the following circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, social relationship, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and other circumstances, which are the conditions for the sentencing specified in the records and pleadings of the instant case, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too uneasy and unreasonable.