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 “fair, objective sentencing that makes citizens trust,” and “public disclosure”. Judges shall respect the type of punishment chosen and determine the sentence (see Articles 81-2 through 81-12 of the Court Organization Act). In a case where a court must state the grounds for sentencing in the written sentencing upon a judgment deviating from the sentencing guidelines, it shall state the grounds in a way that it expresses the relevant sentencing in a reasonable and persuasive manner, taking into account the factors, effects, etc. of the sentencing guidelines (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7410, Dec. 9, 2010).

(c)

When comprehensively taking into account the judgment of the court below and its propriety and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments until the court below decided in the trial and the fact that there are no obvious changes in circumstances enough to change the sentence of the court below in the trial in the trial, the court below shall determine the punishment within the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, comprehensively taking into account the degree of reflectivity of the defendant, criminal records, and the degree of difficulty of family members due to the detention of the defendant, and so on, that the sentence imposed on the defendant by attaching a suspended sentence shall be too exceptionally less

It is difficult to see it.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of conclusion is with merit.