The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (a period of one year of suspension of execution in six months of imprisonment and one hundred and twenty hours of community service in 120 hours) is too unreasonable (the Defendant withdrawn the remainder of the grounds for appeal on the date of the first trial in the first instance trial in the first instance court). 2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is recognized that the Defendant is against the recognition of the instant crime, and the Defendant has no particular criminal record, as well as the Defendant has been sentenced twice a fine, and the Defendant has committed an attempted crime.

However, the judgment of the court below seems to have determined the punishment in consideration of the favorable circumstances, and there is no change of circumstances that may be newly considered in the sentencing after the decision of the court below, and the crime of this case is not unfair because the defendant demanded the victim who has been employed by the company for the first time after the decision of the court below to provide an employment honorarium for the victim who has been employed by the company, and thus, the quality of the crime is very high by damaging the trust in the employment process, and the victim is punished, and other circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, sex, environment, motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the crime, etc., are considered to be unfair.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, it is ex officio, and the court below’s “applicable law” column “Article 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be corrected as “the pertinent law on criminal facts” to “the pertinent law on criminal facts and the choice of punishment”.