2. Determination

A. The sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Commission on the basis of Articles 81-2 and 81-6 of the Court Organization Act (hereinafter “Sentencing guidelines”) are “reasonable, concrete, objective setting” through “procedures prescribed by the Act” and “public disclosure” in order to realize “fair, objective sentencing that citizens may trust” 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 state the reasons in a way that expresses the reasons for the sentencing in question in a reasonable and persuasive manner, taking into account the significance, effect, etc. of the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7410, Dec. 9, 2010). B.

In this case, one year and six months to three years from imprisonment, and there is no circumstance to deem the above scope of recommendation as unfair in this case, the scope of recommendation according to the sentencing guidelines for the same crime in this case.

C. In full view of the circumstances of the lower court’s judgment and its propriety and the sentencing conditions expressed in the pleadings up to the trial, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed on the Defendant is too heavy within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.