The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

1. According to the record as to the allegation of the grounds of appeal as to mental disorder, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and asserted mental and physical disorder along with the sentencing unfair on the grounds of appeal, but revoked the grounds of appeal as to mental and physical disorder on the second trial date of the court below.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental disorder is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal shall be considered ex officio.

A. When a judgment is rendered at the same time for several crimes for which judgment has not become final and conclusive, a punishment shall be imposed in accordance with the penal provisions stipulated under Article 38 of the Criminal Act. As such, in order to exclude the application of Article 38 of the Criminal Act to several crimes indicted as concurrent crimes, and to sentence a sentence different from the above penal provisions, there is a express provision recognizing the exception (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do606, Apr. 9, 2004). (b) Article 32 of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies”) provides that one of the largest shareholders of a financial company shall be examined by the Financial Services Commission as to whether the largest investors (subject to examination of eligibility) among the largest shareholders of the financial company meet the requirements prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the Act on Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade, the Punishment of Tax Evaders and the Punishment of Finance Act, and the Act and subordinate statutes related to finance, etc.

In addition, when a financial company finds that the requirements for maintaining eligibility are not met under paragraphs 2 through 5 of the same Article, a financial company's duty to report to the Financial Services Commission when it finds that it is difficult to meet the requirements for examining eligibility, a request to provide data or information for examining eligibility, and a request to restrict the exercise of voting rights when it is difficult to maintain the compliance and soundness of the measure when it fails to meet the requirements