(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7079, 2010Do41, Aug. 19, 2010). Therefore, despite Article 9(8) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, the part regarding which a request for attachment order is filed is excluded from the scope of the trial of this Court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee on the basis of Articles 81-2 and 81-6 of the Court Organization Act on the basis of the basic principle of sentencing criteria are “reasonable, concrete, and objective setting” and “public” through the “procedures prescribed by the Act” in order to realize “fair, objective sentencing that can be trusted by the people” and the judges shall respect the sentencing guidelines when they choose the type of punishment and determine the sentence.

(See Articles 81-2 through 81-12 of the Court Organization Act). In a case where the reasons for sentencing are to be entered in the written judgment as a result of a judgment deviating from the sentencing criteria, the court shall enter the reasons in a way that expresses in a reasonable and persuasive manner the reasons for sentencing “in light of the significance, effect, etc. of the sentencing criteria”

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7410, Dec. 9, 2010). Unreasonable sentencing means cases where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the specific contents of the case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

3.2