2. It is also true that the crime of this case was committed on the basis that the defendant lent the access medium in return for the promise to pay, and that the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime, and that there is a need for strict punishment against the defendant in that the access medium leased by the defendant was used in the telephone financial fraud crime and causing serious victims.

However, it appears that the Defendant recognized the instant crime as a youth of the 20th early 20 group with no criminal history, and divided his mistake, and leased the access media by deceiving the Defendant’s name in India to “use it for fund purchase”, and recognized that the access media that he lent was used for the telephone financial fraud crime.

Considering the fact that it is not visible, and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and thus, cannot be deemed unfair.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.