A. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s mistake is divided and against himself, the primary offender, and the Defendant did not actually incur damage to the person who has taken over the passbook, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the quality of the inspection crime is not somewhat weak, and the fact that the defendant took part in the delivery of the passbook alone requires a strict punishment, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below (ten months of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The judgment appears to have taken the attitude of reflecting the Defendant’s wrong behavior, that the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment in Korea, that the Defendant’s check was not actually used for the crime of fraud, and that the Defendant deposited money in the name of the passbook transferee after the judgment of the court below with the name of the passbook transferee as the victim after the judgment of the court below is favorable to the Defendant.

The crime of this case is the acquisition of a means of access that can be used for the crime, such as telephone financial fraud, by the so-called Bophishing method, by acquiring the victim's money or by taking over the means of access that can be used for the crime, and the nature of the crime is very poor in light of the fact that the method of crime is organized and intelligent, and the acquisition of the physical card by the defendant in charge of the defendant is indispensable part in the Bophishing crime, so the degree of participation cannot be deemed as

In light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the frequency and degree of the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, Defendant’s age, environment, personality and conduct, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant cannot be deemed to be too weak or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and thus, it is in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.