The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, and the community service order of one hundred and sixty hours) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to sentencing in the trial of the lower court, including the fact that the Defendant paid a considerable amount of KRW 2.6 million to recover damage, and that damage was repaid through the Defendant Company, etc., are mostly taken place in the hearing process of the lower court, and there is no particular change of circumstances in the sentencing guidelines with the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the sentence of the lower court was rendered.

In addition, taking into account the number of crimes committed by the Defendant, the motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, the status of the Defendant at the time of the instant case, the age of the Defendant, the sex and environment of the Defendant, the record of crimes, and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the punishment imposed by the lower court is too unlimited and discretionary.