2. The instant crime was committed with knowledge that the Defendant was used in the commission of the crime, and the account number and the check card were lent to the Defendant, and the actual account was used in the phishing fraud, and the Defendant’s liability is not less than that of the Defendant.

However, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and opposed to the mistake.

According to the records, it seems that the Defendant did not recognize that the access media was actually used for the phishing crime.

In addition, there is no benefit from the crime of this case and there is no record of the same crime.

In addition, taking into account all the circumstances of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s crime, the Defendant’s health status, age, sex, career, family relation, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, circumstances after the crime was committed, and criminal experience, the lower court’s punishment is too unfeasible and unreasonable.

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 appeal is without merit.