All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the factors revealed during the pleadings in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too heavy or unfilled, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, each argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

[1] Article 32(1) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies”) provides that the Financial Services Commission shall review whether one of the largest shareholders of a financial company subject to the pertinent provision (hereinafter “persons subject to examination of qualifications”) does not violate the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, and the Act on Punishment of Tax Evaders, and other Acts and subordinate statutes related to finance, and shall meet the requirements prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter “requirements for the maintenance of qualifications”).

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

, if it is deemed that it may order the person subject to examination of eligibility to take certain measures to ensure the soundness of the management of the financial company.

set forth.

In addition, paragraph 5 of the same article is the result of the examination under paragraph 1.