The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one hundred and twenty months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to 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 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 lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data in the appellate court, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant in the first instance court were considered in determining the punishment at the lower court.

Meanwhile, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the community service order imposed by the lower court is too long to the extent of hindering the Defendant’s living activities, but the Defendant is highly likely to commit the instant crime during the period of probation due to the same type of crime under similar veterinary laws, thereby committing the instant crime during the period of probation.

Nevertheless, the court below imposes the community service order in order to lower the fear of recidivism by granting an opportunity to diveize and improve society once again, taking into account the fact that the defendant acknowledges and reflects the crime, partial recovery of damage to the victim, etc.

B. In view of the fact that the community service order has the nature of the security disposition, not punishment, and the possibility of a flexible execution in the execution stage, considering the given condition and health condition of the subject, etc., it is judged that the court below ordered a community service for 120 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 is excessively unreasonable.