The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment without prison labor for 10 months, 2 years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) that the court below sentenced to the defendant is too unreasonable.

In particular, since it is impossible for the defendant to implement community service in prison due to the defendant's professional circumstances, the court below's order of community service is excessive to the defendant.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial, and the lower court did not appear to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the lower court’s sentencing is too too unreasonable even when comprehensively considering the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, including various circumstances considered in sentencing.

In particular, the Defendant’s assertion that the execution of community service order may result in harsh results on the Defendant, while the Defendant is engaged in the work of door-to-door officers for whom the duty of life is enforced from monthly to Saturdays. However, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that the instant community service order is excessive in light of the following factors: (a) the specific period of time of community service to be performed by the Defendant may be determined flexibly at the executing institution in consideration of the Defendant’s conditions faced in the execution stage; (b) the gravity of the result of the instant crime; (c) the seriousness

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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