This study aims to analyze the challenges faced by judges in determining and imposing alternative sanctions to imprisonment and to propose an appropriate judicial decision-making model. In light of the expansion of decarceration policies within the Iranian legal system and the incorporation of alternative sanctions to imprisonment under the Islamic Penal Code of 2013, the central question addressed is what legal, judicial, and practical obstacles judges encounter in the imposition and implementation of these sanctions, and how a coherent judicial decision-making framework can be developed. The research adopts a descriptive-analytical methodology based on an extensive review of domestic and international legal literature. It examines the legislative, evidentiary, judicial, and enforcement dimensions of alternative sanctions to imprisonment. The findings indicate that ambiguity in legal provisions, the absence of clear criteria for selecting the type and extent of alternative sanctions, difficulties in assessing the offender's personality and rehabilitative potential, inadequate supervisory and enforcement infrastructures, and inconsistencies in judicial practice constitute the principal barriers to the effective implementation of these sanctions. The study further demonstrates that judicial decision-making in this field should be based on the verification of legal eligibility, assessment of the offender's personality, evaluation of proportionality, examination of practical feasibility, selection of the appropriate alternative sanction, and the provision of well-reasoned judicial justification. Accordingly, this article proposes a five-stage judicial decision-making model that can contribute to greater consistency in judicial practice, enhanced judicial accuracy, and the effective realization of the rehabilitative and reintegrative objectives of alternative sanctions to imprisonment.