The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing guidelines established by the sentencing committee based on Articles 81-2 and 81-6 of the Court Organization Act on the basis of the sentencing criteria (hereinafter “Sentencing guidelines”) are “reasonable, concrete, and objective setting” and “public disclosure” following the “procedures prescribed by the Act in order to realize “fair, objective sentencing”. Judges shall respect the selection of the types of punishment and the determination of the sentence (see Articles 81-2 through 81-12 of the Court Organization Act). In a case where a court intends to enter the grounds for the sentencing in the written judgment in a way that it expresses the relevant grounds for sentencing in a reasonable and persuasive manner in light of the sentencing guidelines and the effect thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7410, Dec. 9, 2010, etc.).

In this case, the recommendation punishment according to the sentencing guidelines for the crime of this case is two to four years (basic areas). There is no circumstance to deem the scope of the above recommendation punishment as unfair in this case.

(c)

When comprehensively considering the court below's decision and its propriety and the sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments until the court below decided the circumstances and the trial of the party, the sentence imposed by the defendant within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines is too minor.

It is difficult to see it.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.