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, considering the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and divided his mistake, that the Defendant is a person with a disability of class 3 in the form of brain disease, that the Defendant has no record of punishment for the same crime as the instant crime, and that there are other various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unfeasible 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.