The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (the 4 million won fine is imposed on the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and the 4 million won fine is imposed on the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, with respect to the crime of re-issuance of the official electronic records, etc. and the crime of gambling, such as false electronic records, etc.) is too uneasible.

2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

Pursuant to Article 32(6) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies”), the lower court separately determined punishment for a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

However, Article 32(6) of the Act on the Management of Financial Companies applies to cases where the defendant is the largest investor subject to examination of eligibility as provided for in Article 32(1) of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do20616, Mar. 27, 2018, etc.). There is no evidence to deem that the defendant is subject to examination of eligibility as provided for in Article 32(1) of the Act on the Management of Financial Companies.

Since Article 32 (6) of the Act on the Management of Financial Services and Capital Markets cannot be applied to the defendant, crimes as stated in the judgment below shall be sentenced to a single sentence in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act.

The judgment of the court below on the separate sentence against the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and other crimes is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the separate review of Article 32 (6) of the Act on the Structural Control of Financial Companies.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is so decided as follows.

【Grounds for another judgment】 Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court are identical to the relevant column of the judgment below, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 228(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act for criminal facts (a) of the pertinent Act, and Articles 229 and 228(1) of the Criminal Act for criminal facts.