2. It is also true that the crime of this case was committed on the basis that the defendant lent the access medium in return for the promise to pay, and that the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime, and that there is a need for strict punishment against the defendant in that the access medium leased by the defendant was used in the telephone financial fraud crime and causing serious victims.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime as a primary offender and divided his mistake, 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 committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, the lower court’s punishment 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.