A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court as an appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Health Center, the Defendant, and the Prosecutor as an element of sentencing were already revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation regarding the factors of sentencing after the lower judgment was rendered.

Other acts of preserving the means of access, such as the instant crime, are a crime that forms the basis of other serious crimes, such as Bophishing fraud, and thus, requires strict punishment. Considering the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and pleadings of this case, such as the fact that the Defendant’s means of access kept in this case is merely a physical card 2, and that the Defendant has no profit from the instant crime, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court as being conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, we do not accept the argument of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.