The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of 6 million won) imposed by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, knowing that he would be used for a crime, has kept one physical card, which is a means of electronic financial transactions in another’s name, and embezzled KRW 6 million owned by the victim I, and the liability for the crime is not somewhat weak.

The transfer, acquisition, lending, etc. of the means of access for electronic financial transactions can be used as a means of other crimes such as singing, etc. In fact, in this case, the said means of access kept by the defendant was used as a means of fraud of the singishing organization against the victim.

The Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime.

The defendants have the power to be subject to criminal punishment on five occasions (three times of punishment, and two times of fines).

However, it does not seem that the above defendant took part in the crime of fraud by the scaming organization against the victim.

The above defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the above victim.

The Defendant appears not only to cooperate in the investigation but also to repent of his mistake by recognizing all of the crimes in this case.

It seems that the health and economic conditions of the defendant are not good.

The relatives and branchs of the defendant appeal against the defendant.

Defendant did not have any criminal record identical to each of the crimes in this case.

In addition, even if the defendant's age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, method and consequence of the crime, etc. are added to all the sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments, there is no new circumstance to deem that the sentencing conditions of the court below against the defendant have been changed in the first instance court, and the sentencing of the court below is too unfeasible beyond the reasonable discretion.