2. The acquisition of the means of access to one electronic financial transaction is abused for another crime, and thus is highly likely to cause an unspecified number of victims, and thus, requires a simple and severe punishment. The instant crime is an unfavorable circumstance where the Defendants were to acquire the means of access through Kwiksetman’s instructions in accordance with the International Call Financial Fraud Group’s instructions, and the commission of the crime is not good in light of the circumstances leading up to the crime or the method of the crime.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) both the Defendants led to the instant crime; (b) Defendant A has no criminal record and has no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine, other than having been sentenced to the suspension of indictment due to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; (c) Defendant B is the primary offender; (d) the means of electronic financial access that was acquired by the instant crime is not used for the actual crime of telephone financial fraud; (e) the number of the means of electronic financial means that were acquired; and other various sentencing conditions in the records and arguments, including the age-oriented family environment of the Defendants; and (e) the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the sentence of

3. If so, the Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is without merit. Thus, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.