All appeals filed by A and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

A. Defendant A’s punishment (eight months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, Defendant C: fine of 5 million won) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. According to the records of this case, the period for filing an ex officio appeal against Defendant A’s appeal shall be seven days (Article 358 of the Criminal Procedure Act) from the date on which the judgment of the court below was rendered (Article 358 of the Criminal Procedure Act), and the records of this case, it can be recognized that the Defendant submitted a petition of appeal on July 4, 2018, which was seven days after the date when the judgment of the court below was rendered on June 21, 2018. As such, Defendant A’s appeal is filed after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal, and it is obvious that the right to file an appeal is extinguished, and even after

Therefore, in accordance with Articles 362(1) and 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Defendant A’s appeal shall be dismissed by decision. However, Defendant A’s appeal shall be dismissed by decision in the same manner as the following is rendered, at the same time as the public prosecutor’s appeal is rendered.

3. As to the prosecutor’s appeal, Defendant A did not only use the passbook, but also distributed the passbook. Defendant C also borrowed one medium of access from Defendant A for the purpose of using the passbook for its own business. The need to strictly regulate the lending of access media as promoting tort, such as hosting, illegal gambling, tax evasion, etc.

However, it is recognized that the Defendants both led to confessions and reflects each of the crimes of this case, Defendant A did not have the same criminal record, Defendant C did not have any history of criminal punishment, Defendant A appears to have no profit from the crime, Defendant C was arrested immediately after the crime was committed, and Defendant C was unable to use an access medium. The court below determined the punishment in consideration of the above circumstances, and compared with the first instance court.