The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (a punishment of imprisonment of three years, confiscation and collection) is too unreasonable.

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” and “public disclosure”. Judges shall respect the type of punishment selected and the scope of punishment 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 the written sentencing upon a judgment deviating from the sentencing guidelines, it shall enter 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)

If the judgment of the court below and its propriety are comprehensively taken into account the conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings and the fact that there is no obvious change in the situation in the trial until the court below decided the situation and the trial of the party, the punishment of the defendant is too heavy by escaping the lower limit of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines.

It is difficult to see it.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.

1. The phrase “proviso of Article 42” in the part of the aggravation of concurrent crimes is apparent to be a clerical error, and thus, the phrase “aggravating concurrent crimes to the extent that the long-term punishment of the above two crimes is added.”