2. The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant, on the following grounds: (a) the defendant purchased an access medium, such as passbook, e-mail card, etc. connected to six accounts in the course of operating an office for the distribution of a passbook; and (b) the nature of the crime is not somewhat weak for the case of re-transfer; (c) the crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, such as this case, is highly likely to be abused for other crimes, such as the so-called “scaming” fraud; (d) the Defendant was actually using the access medium; and (e) the Defendant was actually subject to criminal punishment nine times due to the Defendant’s violation of the Financial Protection Act, such as fraud, registration of lending business, etc., and the violation

However, considering various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, background leading up to the Defendant’s crime, method and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unfeasible and unreasonable.

In addition, the prosecutor asserts that the seized evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 9, and 12 should be confiscated, but since the confiscation under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Code is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate the seized article is at the discretion of the court. In light of various circumstances such as the contents of the crime in this case, the degree and scope of the seizure in this case, and the role of the defendant, it does not seem that measures not to be ordered to confiscate the above seized article are unfair.

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.