2. In view of the fact that the act of lending the access media, such as the instant crime, can be used for the crime of Bosing, etc., and that the access media actually leased by the Defendant appears to have been used for the crime of Bosing, the crime’s nature is not less than that of the crime.

However, there are favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime and reflects in depth the mistake, and the Defendant appears not to have directly participated in, or have knowingly aided and abetted the details of, the instant crime, and the fact that the Defendant appears to have no benefits actually accrued from the instant crime, and that the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant crime, etc.

In addition to the above circumstances, taking into account the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, its means and consequence, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case records and arguments, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair as it is deemed unfair.

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 prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.