A. The punishment of the lower court (4 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the nature of the crime of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unfasible and unreasonable, in view of the fact that the prosecutor’s Defendant knowingly transferred the access medium of this case, and the access medium of the Defendant leased was used for the singishing crime.

2. However, the fact that the Defendant lent the access medium connected to his account to receive the price, that the Defendant’s access medium was actually used for licensing crimes, and that the access medium leased or transferred as in the instant case is used as an essential criminal tool in an organized crime such as Bosing, and that the leased or transferred person can be aware that his access medium was used for an unlawful act, and there is a need for strict punishment against the Defendant.

On the other hand, it is favorable to the defendant that there is no particular criminal history of the defendant, and that the defendant seems to reflect his fault.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive for the instant crime, and circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed appropriate, and is too heavy, or is too unreasonable as it is too unfluent.

3. The appeal of this case by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.