All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and four months for each crime set forth in the first instance judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the prosecutor (misunderstanding the legal principle as to the first instance court) tried separately pursuant to Article 32(6) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies with respect to the Defendants’ violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby rendering the Defendants a single sentence, thereby violating the relevant statutes.

B. Defendant B (Defendant B (Defendant 1) 1) and misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of the Automobile Management Act (Violation of the Automobile Management Act) have lent money to Defendant A and kept and used a motor vehicle as security.

A is not an automobile assigned from A.

2) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court to the defendant (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, collection 1.220,00 won) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

A (unfair sentencing in the first and second trials) The sentence imposed by the first instance court (a year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) and the second instance judgment (a period of ten months of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the Prosecutor’s argument of misapprehension of the legal doctrine ought to be made at the same time when a judgment on multiple crimes for which relevant legal doctrine has not become final and conclusive, according to the punishment cases stipulated under Article 38 of the Criminal Act. As such, Article 32 of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies”) must stipulate the exception in order to exclude the application of Article 38 of the Criminal Act to several crimes indicted for concurrent crimes, and to sentence a sentence different from the above punishment cases (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do606, Apr. 9, 2004). Article 32 of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies”) provides the title “examination of the largest stockholder’s qualification, etc.” under paragraph (1) of the same Article, the Financial Services Commission does not violate the statutes relating to the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, tax Offenses and Punishment Act at a certain period against the largest investor among the largest shareholders of financial companies.