The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (3 million won in punishment, 40 hours in order to complete a program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as 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 first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). (b) In most cases, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to sentencing in the trial at the trial of the lower court were revealed in the proceedings of the lower court, and there is no particular change in circumstances related to the matters subject to sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment.

In light of the fact that the defendant has no particular criminal history, the confession of the crime, and reflects on the crime, etc. that are favorable to the defendant, but considering the fact that the defendant is going to a different place from the body of sobry water, it is not deemed that the crime was committed contingent, and the degree of the conduct of the crime is light.

It is necessary to consider that there is no agreement with the victim even if it is in the first instance.