2. The lower court determined the sentence by taking account of the fact that the Defendant had no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the Defendant’s age, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

Although it is recognized that the account transferred by the Defendant was actually used for the commission of the phishing crime, and that it is necessary to strictly punish the transfer of the account, which is an essential element, in order to eradicate the phishing crime, it appears that these circumstances had already been considered in the original trial and that the sentencing conditions mentioned earlier have been significantly changed in the first instance trial.

It is difficult to see it.

In addition, considering the fact that the defendant led to the confession and reflect of the crime, and that it seems that the actual benefit from the transfer of an access medium is not possible, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair because the sentence of the court below is excessive.

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.