The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The defendant shows an attitude to recognize and reflect each of the crimes in this case, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same kind, and there was no prosecution against the person under consideration due to each of the crimes in this case. However, the court below appears to have determined the punishment against the defendant in light of the above circumstances, and there is no change of circumstances that may be considered in the sentencing after the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, and there is no need to strictly punish the person under consideration in the proper trial function of the State's penal authority, and there is no reason to view the defendant's motive and scope of punishment in this case's unlawful manner after the sentence was made by each of the defendant.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.