A and the Prosecutor's appeal are dismissed.

A. Defendant A’s punishment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant B of the public prosecutor (a prison term of six months, a stay of execution of two years, and a community service order of eight hours) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Defendant A’s wrongful assertion of sentencing was committed during the suspended execution period. In particular, Defendant A committed the instant crime while repeatedly committing the crime of fraud, and in particular, the nature of the crime was inferior by using the forged account statement, and the damage was not recovered even if the amount of damage to the crime of fraud was 1590 million won.

In addition, the transfer of access media is not only destroying the stability and reliability of electronic financial transactions, but also is a soil that can continuously occur in various fraudulent crimes such as singishing, etc., so it is necessary to impose strict punishment on the transfer of access media in order to prevent such crimes in our society.

In addition, given that the Defendant’s age, sex, family relationship and economic circumstances, health status of the Defendant and his family, previous offense, motive, means and consequence of the offense, and other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as shown in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Although the Defendant, who was the first offender, denied the instantless crime against Defendant B by the Prosecutor, the Defendant was aware of the instantless crime, thereby recovering full damage to the victim. In light of other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by Defendant A and the Prosecutor is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.