2. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant promised the receipt of the consideration to the name in return for the lending of a physical card linked to the account under one’s name to the name in order to impair the credibility of the safety performance of electronic financial transactions; (b) the Defendant’s account was used for the phishing crime; and (c) one of the reasons why the phishing crime is not cut, one of the reasons why the phishing crime was committed, as the Defendant, is due to the supplier of the phishing criminal organization, the phishing criminal intent is to punish the Defendant with severe punishment corresponding to the act.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the Defendant is deemed to have an opportunity to reflect this case. Thus, there is no way to easily give money to the Defendant, and if the Defendant repeats the same act, it seems that the Defendant would have easily lent money to a person without any room to have his name, and that the Defendant would have easily lent money, and the amount of damage to the Defendant’s scam, using the Defendant’s account, is relatively less than 3.8 million won. In full view of all the sentencing conditions, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the Defendant may have an opportunity to reflect this case. Therefore, the lower court’s punishment should be maintained only once by seriously warning the Defendant

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.