The defendant must work 15 days in order to implement the community service order because he/she is currently on duty and the defendant's family's livelihood is considerably terminated. Thus, the defendant's prior action against the community service order is sought (the defendant stated the grounds of appeal on the grounds of mistake of facts, but did not state the grounds of appeal on the grounds of mistake of facts, and did not withdraw from the grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal).2.

However, the illegality of the instant crime, which the Defendant threatened knife on the side of 3 years and 6 months of her age, is grave, and the Defendant suffered a big shock, as well as her suffering from considerable mental distress, due to the instant crime, and the most weak Defendant committed the instant crime against her wife and her children, as well as other unfavorable factors such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, conditions before and after the instant crime, etc., in full view of the various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, it cannot be deemed unfair since the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that ordering the defendant to provide community service for 120 hours is unfair.

In light of the above circumstances, the court below's order of community service while suspending the execution of imprisonment is unlawful and the nature of the crime of this case.