The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years and six months of suspended execution, observation of protection and community service order 160 hours) 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

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts 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, and that it is unfair for the Defendant to commit the instant crime. However, despite the fact that the Defendant had been punished on two occasions as a result of the same crime, it is recognized that the Defendant has committed the instant crime, thereby

The lower court imposed a community service order in order to lower the risk of re-offending, taking into account the circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the crime and reflected, and agreed with the victim, by providing an opportunity for edification and improvement at once in depth within society.

In addition, considering 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 process of execution, considering the given condition and health condition of the subject, it is reasonable that the court below ordered a community service order for 160 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 not too unreasonable.