2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and where the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable conditions

The circumstances asserted by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal (such as the strict necessity of lending access media because the media transferred by the defendant was abused for fraud and the damage was not recovered to the extent of fraud, and the damage was caused by phishing crimes) seems to have been already considered in the sentencing process of the lower court.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the first instance court.

In full view of the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, including the fact that the Defendant led to the confession and the prevention of recurrence, the fact that there was no criminal record of the same kind of power and the suspension of execution or more, and the fact that it appears to result in the instant crime in order to prepare hospital expenses for children under economic difficult circumstances, etc., in this case, the Defendant’s act of lending one head of the physical card in this case was committed, as indicated in the lower court and the party’s oral argument, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unfair

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