A. The Prosecutor’s sentence (3 million won in a penalty) is too unhued and unjust.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the transfer of the access medium is highly necessary to strictly regulate that the transfer of the access medium is promoting illegal acts such as Bosing, illegal gambling, tax evasion, etc., and that the access medium actually transferred by the Defendant is used for the crime of Bosing.

However, it is reasonable to respect the Defendant’s confession and reply to the instant crime, the Defendant did not have the past criminal punishment, the Defendant reported the loss of the money deposited in the account after the instant crime was committed, and the Defendant returned the money deposited in the account in the lower court in consideration of the above circumstances. If the first instance court did not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In other light of all other circumstances that form the conditions of the instant argument and the sentencing indicated in the record, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too somewhat minor or unfair.

3. Thus, the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.