The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Judges shall respect the sentencing criteria of the Sentencing Committee in sentencing, and the court shall, unless it decides by the summary procedure or by the adjudication procedure, take into account the significance, effect, etc. of the Sentencing criteria in cases where the reasons for sentencing are to be stated in the judgment, and shall state the reasons in a way that expresses the reasons why the relevant sentencing was conducted in a reasonable and persuasive manner (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7410, 2010Do444, Dec. 9, 2010). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's allegation that the crime of this case is not good, the victim's bereaved family members want to be punished against the defendant; the victim's deposit KRW 120 million with the victim's bereaved family members in relation to the claim for damages raised by the defendant's bereaved family members; the victim's bereaved family members' losses are not recovered; the defendant's motive and condition of the suspended sentence cannot be seen as being beyond the scope of the punishment of the defendant's illegal sentencing; the defendant's motive and condition of sentencing.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court can be deemed to have stated the grounds for sentencing in the written judgment in a way that expresses the grounds for such sentencing against the Defendant in a reasonable and persuasive manner. Thus, the lower court’s allegation in the grounds of appeal that, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the method of sentencing to be observed by judges in sentencing going beyond the sentencing guidelines and violated Article 81-7(2) of the Court Organization