The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Considering the health conditions of the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant is unable to properly provide community service due to the lack of the defendant's vision, the punishment of the court below (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, and 180 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court solely on the ground that the sentencing of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the scope of discretion.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In general, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant is not sufficiently capable of performing community service.

In addition, it is difficult to evaluate that there exists a change in the sentencing conditions compared to the trial court and the court below, and taking into account the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the court below is too excessive.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.