The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing) The lower court, in accordance with Article 32(6) and (1) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Act”), committed a violation of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies, even though it is necessary to separately decide on the violation of the Act and the remaining crimes.

The sentence of the court below shall be too minor.

2. Determination

A. 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) by acquiring shares issued by the financial company to determine the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 32 of the Act already provides for the requirements for maintaining eligibility for one largest shareholder among the largest shareholders of the financial company that acquired the status as a major shareholder through the above approval of change. Article 31 of the Act does not provide for separate review and determination under Article 32 of the Act, but provides for separate review and determination under Article 31 of the Act, and Article 32 of the Act does not provide for separate review and determination under Article 32 of the Act, and Article 32 (6) of the Act provides for separate review and determination under Article 32 of the Act. Article 32 (1) of the Act provides not only "a crime arising from a violation of the finance-related Acts and subordinate statutes under Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Act, but also that it is necessary for the defendant to examine the largest shareholder's qualifications under Article 2(2) of the Act.