All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The reason for the appeal by the prosecutor is that it is the reason for the appeal by the defendant that the punishment prescribed by the court of the original instance (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable, and that it is too unreasonable due to it.

2. In the judgment of the court, the person participated in two times in cash withdrawals in the crime of Bosing, and the 14 accessible media were delivered and kept.

The defendant's liability for the crime is not against the law.

There was no particular recovery of damage.

On the other hand, it seems that the defendant led to the confession of crime and reflects on it.

It is an initial crime without any previous criminal record.

The court of the court below rendered the sentence against the defendant by taking account of the aforementioned various positive and negative circumstances.

The judgment below

There is no new circumstance that can be considered in sentencing as a result of the sentence.

In addition, in full view of various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, it shall not be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Although the sentencing guidelines are lower than the lower limit of the recommended range under the sentencing guidelines, considering the equity between the above various circumstances and similar sentencing cases, it is difficult to view that the sentencing guidelines are too unjustifiable.

3. On the other hand, the prosecutor stated his opinion on the separate charge of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and the remainder of the facts charged under the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Act”).

This seems to be based on Article 32 (6) of the Act.

Unlike Article 31 of the Act that provides for the requirements for approval of change to a person who intends to become a major shareholder (the major shareholder of a financial company is divided into the largest shareholder and the major shareholder according to Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Act), Article 32 of the Act has already been granted the status of a major shareholder through the foregoing approval of change.