The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The defendant shall obtain money from the applicant G to the applicant G 20,000.

1. The decision of the court below against the defendant on the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing: 2 years of imprisonment for each fraud: 6 months of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts in the Decision; 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

The facts charged in the instant case include a violation of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies. According to Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Financial Control Act”), Articles 5 subparag. 33 and 27 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt of Contracts, the Act on the Regulation of Financial Manager Act constitutes “Acts and subordinate statutes prescribed by Presidential Decree relating to finance” as provided in Article 32 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt of Contracts, but the provisions on separate review of Article 32 subparag. 6 of the Act on the Regulation of Financial Managership apply only to the case where the defendant is the largest investor subject to examination of qualifications as provided in Article 32 subparag. 1 of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do20616, Mar. 15, 2018). However, in light of the above legal principles as to the Act on the Regulation of Financial Managership, the lower court’s judgment did not have any such legal provisions separately from the above.

3. In conclusion, the court below's judgment is reversed ex officio. Thus, without examining the defendant's grounds for appeal for sentencing, Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.