2. The crime of this case is a fact that the defendant lent the access medium in return for the promise of compensation, and the nature of the crime is not less severe, and it is also true that the defendant requires strict punishment in that the access medium leased by the defendant was used for telephone finance fraud.

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime as a primary offender and divided his mistake; (b) the Defendant faithfully engaged in a social life, such as making contributions; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive for committing the instant crime; and (d) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the circumstances after committing the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unfeasible and unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Provided, That since Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act is erroneous in the application of the law of the court below, "Article 48 (1) 1 of the Confiscation Act" is erroneous in the part of "Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act", it is deleted, and since it was omitted in this error, it is corrected to add it, respectively).