2. Determination

A. The sentencing guidelines established by the sentencing committee based on Articles 81-2 and 81-6 of the Act on the Organization of Courts for the Determination of Sentencing (hereinafter “Sentencing guidelines”) are “reasonable, concrete, and objective setting” through the “procedures prescribed by the Act” in order to realize the “fair, objective sentencing” and “public disclosure”. Judges shall respect the type of punishment selected and the sentence determined (see Articles 81-2 through 81-12 of the Court Organization Act). In a case where a court intends to enter the grounds for sentencing in a written judgment beyond the sentencing guidelines, the court shall enter the relevant sentencing in a way that expresses the grounds for sentencing in a reasonable and persuasive manner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7410, Dec. 9, 2010); (b) the scope of recommendations made pursuant to the sentencing guidelines to increase or decrease the applicable punishment; and (iii) the pertinent factors of punishment to increase or decrease the applicable punishment by not less than 300,000 won (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20100).

In this case, the recommendation punishment according to the sentencing guidelines for the same crime as the instant case is from one year to two years (aggravating area), and there is no circumstance to deem the scope of the above recommendation punishment as unfair in this case.

(c)

If the judgment of the court below and its propriety are comprehensively considered in light of the conditions of sentencing as shown in the oral argument until the court below's decision and its decision were made and the appellate court's decision were made, the sentence imposed on the defendant is too heavy within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines

It is difficult to see it.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion of the defendant.