The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (one million won in penalty) declared by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

2. Determination: (a) the act of lending an access medium like the instant crime is likely to undermine the stability and reliability of electronic financial transactions and cause secondary damage by abusing it for other serious crimes, such as telephone financing fraud (the tentatively named “phishing”), and in fact, it is recognized that the Defendant’s lending account was used for the instant crime; (b) on the other hand, the Defendant is recognized as committing the instant crime; (c) there is no record of criminal punishment; (d) the Defendant appears to have no benefit from the instant crime; (c) the victim of the instant crime appears to have applied for suspension of payment of the relevant account; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after committing the instant crime are considered, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit, given that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, considering all the sentencing conditions stated in the record of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, family relationship, and circumstances after committing the instant crime.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is clearly without merit. Thus, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That since it is obvious that the “C” of the judgment below No. 17 is a clerical error in the “G”, the prosecutor’s appeal is ex officio correction in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.