2. Since the crime of Bosing is highly harmful to society, even if the defendant participated only in the withdrawal and the delivery of the means of access as the defendant, such role is essential for the crime of Bosing, and thus there is a need for strict punishment. In order to participate in the crime of Bosing, the defendant entered the Republic of Korea to take part in the crime of this case, and the damage caused by the crime of aiding and abetting fraud has not been recovered. However, the judgment of the court below seems to have determined punishment in consideration of all the above sentencing factors.

In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to see that the sentence of the lower judgment is too unjustifiable, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant divided the crime and reflects the depth of the crime; (b) the crime of fraud was committed once; (c) the damage therefrom was not significant; and (d) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime due to economic difficulties; and (b) the profits acquired from the instant crime are merely small sums; and (c) the Defendant’s age, career, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (d) the various sentencing conditions indicated in the argument in the instant case, such as

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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.