2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, 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). It is necessary to strictly punish the transfer, acquisition, lending, etc. of an access medium for electronic financial transactions can be used as a means of other crimes, such as singing, etc. In this case, the access medium leased by the Defendant was actually used for singing.

However, the defendant lent the instant physical card and actually acquired it seems to have no profit, and the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the grounds for sentencing revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, relationship of criminal records (five times of fines), background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to have been too uneasible and unfair.

3. Accordingly, 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.