All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

No applicant for the scope of adjudication in this Court may file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation.

(See Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, since the part of the court below's rejection of an application for compensation has become final and conclusive, such part shall be excluded from

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant’s unreasonable sentencing: The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

Judgment

A. The sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Committee on the basis of the basic principle of sentencing set forth in Articles 81-2 and 81-6 of the Court Organization Act on the basis of the basic principle of sentencing are “reasonable, concrete, and objective setting” through the “procedures prescribed by the Act” to realize “fair, objective sentencing that the people trust” and “public” 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 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”.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7410 Decided December 9, 2010, supra, is understood to the same purport, and the sentencing criteria are basically the judges.