2. The lower court rendered a sentence by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the period of repeated crime; (b) the Defendant’s access media was used for the Defendant’s phishing crime; (c) the amount equivalent to the amount of damage was recovered to the victim; and (d) the Defendant was committed at the time of the commission of the crime and divided into favorable circumstances; and (c) the sentence was imposed by taking into account the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, criminal history, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

In order for the prosecutor to eradicate the Bosing crime as alleged in the ground of appeal, it is recognized that it is necessary to strictly punish the transfer or lending of the account, which is an essential element, but such circumstance appears to have already been considered in the original court and the sentencing conditions mentioned above have been significantly changed in the first instance trial.

It is difficult to see it.

In addition, in light of the sentencing conditions set forth in the court below, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unhutiled.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.