The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is connected to the crime of gambling on the Internet with severe social harm, the crime itself is not good, and the defendant establishes a floating corporation and creates and transfers a total of 27 approaches to the crime. However, even though the defendant knew that he would be used for the crime, the defendant's mistake and reflects his wrong, and the defendant has no particular criminal history in this case, and the sentencing conditions indicated in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, health status, crime history and motive, means and consequence, circumstances after the crime, equity in punishment with other accomplices, etc., are considered, and thus, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is unfair.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[1] Article 32(1) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Act”) provides that one of the largest shareholders of a financial company shall examine the requirements for maintaining eligibility, such as whether the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, and the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, are in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes prescribed by Presidential Decree, and Article 32(6) of the Act provides that a person concurrently commits a violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes provided for in paragraph (1) and another crime shall be tried and sentenced separately, notwithstanding Article 38 of the Criminal Act. Of the grounds for the punishment of this case, the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, among the Acts and subordinate statutes, is in accordance with Articles 5 and 27(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act. However, this case’s Act provides that a person who is the largest shareholder, shall be tried and sentenced separately.