2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation that is the condition of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of all the sentencing factors indicated in the arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, the process and motive leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the sentencing of the lower court, which sentenced the Defendant to a probation on the condition of community service, is too unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, cannot be said to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.