The appeal is 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(37 of the Enforcement Decree as to the grounds for the prosecutor’s appeal, the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act 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 Corporate Governance of Financial Companies apply only where the defendant falls under the subject of examination of eligibility under Article 32(1) of the same Act.

Therefore, even according to the record, 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 Services and Capital Markets. Thus, the court below's decision that the defendant did not separately examine and decide the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and other crimes among the facts charged in this case against the defendant.

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 the records on the grounds of appeal by the defendant, since it is apparent that the defendant did not appeal against the judgment of the court below, the defendant's allegation in the grounds of appeal submitted by the defense counsel of the defendant is not judged separately

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