The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of three million won) of the lower court is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the act of lending the means of access, such as the instant case, needs to be strictly regulated as acts facilitating various crimes, such as licensing, illegal gambling, tax evasion, etc., and that the means of access actually leased by the Defendant was used for licensing crimes.

However, it is recognized that the defendant led to the crime of this case, is the first offender who does not have any criminal power, and that the defendant seems to have no actual benefit from the crime of this case. The court below decided the punishment in consideration of the above circumstances. It is reasonable to respect the punishment in the case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court of first instance, and the sentencing of the court of first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to deem the lower court’s punishment to be unfair because it goes beyond the scope of discretion and goes beyond the scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.