The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (4 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The act of lending a third party’s access to electronic financial transactions is abused as a means of other crime to cause substantial damage to the general public, and the defendant’s lending of access media is in fact used to commit fraud, and strict punishment corresponding thereto is required.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided; (b) there is no criminal conviction for the Defendant; (c) there was no criminal conviction exceeding the fine at the time of the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant does not seem to have obtained particular benefits from the instant crime; and (c) the instant crime is concurrent crimes with the crime of destroying property and the crime of causing damage to a group after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should take into account the case to be concurrently decided under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and equity in the case of concurrent crimes; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) various sentencing conditions specified in pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, are too unaf

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. However, since it is evident that “C”, which is the name of the Saemaul Bank Account No. 1 of the judgment below No. 2, is a clerical error of “J”, the prosecutor’s appeal is ex officio correction in accordance with Article 25(1) of the