All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 32(6) and (1) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies and Article 5 subparag. 13, 37, and 42 of the Enforcement Decree with respect to the grounds for the prosecutor’s appeal, it is reasonable to view that the provisions of separate review and sentence under Article 32(6) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies apply only to cases where the defendant falls under the subject of examination of eligibility under Article 32(1) of the Enforcement Decree, and the Act on Registration of Loan Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users, the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the violation of the Act on Collection of Claims, are tried separately from other crimes.

Therefore, even according to the records, there is no evidence to view that the defendant falls under the subject of examination of eligibility under Article 32 (1) of the Act on the Management of Financial Companies. Thus, it is reasonable that the court below did not separately examine and decide on the defendant's charge of the registration of loan business, etc., violation of the Act on the Protection of Financial Users, violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and violation of the Act on the Collection of Claims.

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. As to the grounds for the Defendant’s appeal, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to Article 51 (Conditions of Sentencing) of the Criminal Act constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable 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.