2. The Defendant already knew that the instant crime was the hot level of the crime of Bosing fraud, and thus there is a significant need for strict punishment. The instant crime was committed, and that the Defendant had already known that the instant crime was actually committed, and that the Defendant should not lend the cream card.

However, in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, including the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, the defendant did not have the same criminal record, and the fact that the defendant seems to have no actual profits from the crime of this case, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime of this case, circumstances before and after the crime of this case, etc., the punishment of this case alone sentenced by the court below would be sufficient warning to the defendant.

(However, there is no clear warning that the defendant cannot take more action in the event that the defendant again commits the same crime in the future). 3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is groundless. Thus, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.