2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime of the instant case is recognized as requiring corresponding punishment in that it provides the means or seconds for other crimes highly harmful to society, such as Bosing, etc., and that the account connected with the access medium leased by the Defendant was used for actual fraud.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime, and reflects his mistake; (b) the Defendant’s access media transferred by the Defendant is 1; (c) it appears that the Defendant could easily obtain a loan under the circumstances that are difficult at the time; (d) it appears that he committed the instant crime by suspicion; (b) there is no record of criminal punishment for the same type of crime; (c) there is no family member to support; (d) there is no other special change of circumstances that may be newly considered after the pronouncement of the lower judgment; and (e) other factors of sentencing as shown in pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, means and method of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., all of the sentencing conditions as

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.