2. The lower court sentenced the above sentence by taking account of the circumstances favorable to the following: (a) the delivery of access media for electronic financial transactions to facilitate other intelligent crimes, such as scam, etc., and the strict punishment is necessary; (b) the actual Defendant’s access media was used for committing a crime; and (c) the Defendant appears to have no benefits acquired as a result of the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant appears to have no benefits acquired as a result of the instant crime.

In full view of the circumstances taken into account as above and all other conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading up to the commission of the offense, means and consequence, size of the offense, and circumstances after the commission of the offense, the lower court determined that the sentence imposed on the Defendant was reasonable, and that the lower court exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, as asserted by a prosecutor, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair as it is so far as it ought to be reversed.

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