The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, the observation of protection, the community service order 80 hours, the lecture order 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and the fact that the sentencing is determined within an appellate court’s ex post facto nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in a case where there is no change in the conditions for the sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion, and to refrain from sentencing that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

In full view of the reasons for sentencing revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, it is difficult to evaluate the sentencing of the lower court, which is so excessive that the sentencing of the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

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