The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

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 does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In such a case, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the lower court on the ground that no new data on sentencing have been submitted at the appellate court

The Defendant alleged to the effect that the community service order imposed by the lower court was too long, to the extent that it may hinder the Defendant’s living activities by seeking and maintaining work, etc. However, the Defendant committed the same kind of crime using the same dangerous object in spite of having been punished three times as the same crime since 2004, and thus, is highly likely to repeat the crime.

The lower court imposed a community service order in order to provide an opportunity to diveize and improve society by taking into account the circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant acknowledges and reflects the crime and that the victim agreed with, but lower the risk of re-offending.

Considering that the community service order has the nature of security disposition, not punishment, and the possibility of a flexible execution in the execution stage, considering the condition and health condition of the subject, etc., it is deemed appropriate that the court below ordered a community service order for 80 hours within the reasonable scope of discretion.

Examining the above circumstances and other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s criminal history, age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime was committed, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is deemed appropriate, and it does not seem unfair due to excessively unreasonable.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is unfair.