The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The execution of punishment shall be carried out for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant’s unreasonable sentencing: The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor’s unreasonable sentencing: The lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee on the basis of the basic and basic criteria for sentencing determination pursuant to Articles 81-2 and 81-6 of the Court Organization Act shall be “reasonable, concrete, and objective setting” through the “procedures prescribed by the Act” to realize “fair, objective sentencing that the people may trust” and “public” and the judges shall respect the selection of the type of punishment and the determination of 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). In light of the fact that the Court Organization appears to have adopted a recommended sentencing criteria in the sense of comparison with the so-called constructive sentencing criteria, it seems that the reason for sentencing to be set by a judge in the written judgment while making a judgment beyond the sentencing criteria is not “a reason for escaping from the sentencing criteria,” and that it is sufficient to clarify “the reason for sentencing in question”.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7410 Decided December 9, 2010 as cited above is understood to the same purport). Furthermore, the sentencing guidelines are only prepared as specific and objective criteria that can be referred to the judges in determining rational sentencing, and do not have legal binding force (see, e.g., the proviso to Article 81-7 (1) of the Court Organization Act and Supreme Court Decision 2009Do11448, Dec. 10, 2009). However, the sentencing guidelines are nonexistent.