2. The crime of this case is a fact that the defendant lent the access medium in return for the promise of compensation, and the nature of the crime is not less severe, and it is also true that the defendant requires strict punishment in that the access medium leased by the defendant was used for telephone finance fraud.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime as a primary offender and divided his mistake, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

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.