The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and four months.

Nos. 2 through 16, 19, 20.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (in each case of fraud, 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor, 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor, and 6 months of confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

According to Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Act”) and Articles 5 subparag. 37 and 27(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Management of Financial Companies, the Electronic Financial Transactions Act included in the facts charged in the instant case constitutes “Acts and subordinate statutes prescribed by Presidential Decree relating to finance” under Article 32(1) of the Act on the Management of Financial Companies.

However, Article 32(6) of the Act on the Management of Financial Companies applies only to the case where the defendant is the largest investor subject to examination of eligibility under Article 32(1) of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do20616, Mar. 15, 2018). There is no evidence to deem that the defendant falls under the subject of examination of eligibility under Article 32(1) of the Act on the Management of Financial Companies.

Therefore, since the defendant does not fall under the subject of examination of eligibility under Article 32 (1) of the Act on the Construction of Financial Systems and thus the provisions of separate review and sentence under Article 32 (6) cannot be applied, each crime in the holding of the court below is to be sentenced to a single sentence in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act, but the judgment of the court below which sentenced a punishment separately from the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act as stated in the holding of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the provisions of separate review under Article 32 (6) of the Act on Construction of Financial Systems

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows.

[Grounds for the judgment to be used again] Summary of facts constituting a crime and evidence