The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable in light of the following: (a) a number of crimes arising from the lending of the means of access, such as the instant crime, occur in many times; (b) the amount of damage therefrom is significant socially; (c) the means of access actually leased by the Defendant is used to operate obscene sites; and (d) the profits acquired by the Defendant and the circumstances leading to the commission of the crime.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment as the new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial court. In full view of all of the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unfluent and so it cannot be deemed that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.