2. The crime of this case is a fact that the defendant lent the access medium in return for the promise of compensation, and the nature of the crime is not less severe, and it is also true that the defendant requires strict punishment in that the access medium leased by the defendant was used for telephone finance fraud.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and divided his mistake, that the Defendant was either punished for the same crime as the instant crime or has no record of being sentenced to a suspended sentence or heavier punishment for another crime, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive for the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.