All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

The defendant shall pay 150,000 to the applicant for compensation.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to Article 32(6) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (amended by Act No. 1) of the second lower judgment (hereinafter “Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies”), the lower court, which sentenced a single sentence, should be sentenced separately from the offense of violation of the Electronic Financial Business Act, which is a financial-related statute, among each of the instant crimes, should be sentenced. However, the lower court, which sentenced a single sentence, is unlawful.

2) The judgment of the court below of the third instance (unfair sentencing) is unreasonable because it is too uneasible to the punishment (1.5 million won in penalty) declared by the court below against the defendant.

B. The court below's sentence (the court below's sentence No. 1: imprisonment for 8 months, 2 months: imprisonment for 6 months and 3 months: fine for 1.5 million won and 4 months) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The facts charged in the instant case include the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in the determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion of the violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes. According to Articles 5 subparag. 37 and 27 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Management of Private Financial Transactions, the Electronic Financial Transactions Act constitutes “Acts and subordinate statutes related to finance” under Article 32 subparag. 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 separately deliberate and decide on the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, did not err by violating the Acts and subordinate statutes.

The prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. We examine ex officio the judgment of the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s grounds for appeal prior to the determination of ex officio grounds for appeal.

With respect to the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant, the defendant or the prosecutor appealeds each of the above cases, and this court consolidateds each of the above cases.

Article 37 of the Criminal Code applies to each of the crimes committed by the defendant.