All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 32(6) and Article 32(1) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies and Article 5(33) of the Enforcement Decree with respect to the grounds for the prosecutor’s appeal, the crime of violating the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts should be tried and sentenced separately from other crimes. However, it is reasonable to view that the provisions of separate review and sentence under Article 32(6) of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts are applicable only to cases where the defendant falls under the subject of examination of eligibility under Article 32(1) of the Act on the Control of Financial Companies.

Therefore, even according to the record, there is no evidence to view that the defendant falls under the subject of examination of eligibility as provided by Article 32 (1) of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts among the facts charged in this case, and thus, it is justifiable that the court below did not separately examine and decide on the defendant's violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 32(6) of the Act on the Management of Financial Companies.

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and D, only in cases where the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is pronounced, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where the above defendants were sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.