2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and where the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable conditions

The circumstances asserted by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal (such as the need for strict punishment against the Defendant’s access media used for the criminal act of licensing, lending or transferring access media, etc.) seems to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the lower court.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the first instance court.

In full view of the sentencing conditions, such as the character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., as indicated in the deliberation of the court below and the party concerned, including the confession of the crime of this case and the fact that there was no record of criminal punishment, the fact that the defendant lent the head of the CC Card in this case, and the fact that the defendant was not paid the price actually promised, etc., the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.