The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment by taking account of the following circumstances confirmed through the entire records and the purport of the pleading.

The circumstances are as follows: ① even if the Defendant had the record of punishment for leaving office for a period exceeding two months during the service as public interest service personnel, the Defendant committed the instant crime; ② the Defendant committed the instant crime during the repeated crime due to the criminal records in the judgment; ② the Defendant recognized the instant crime; ② the Defendant is faithfully performing his duty during the remaining service period as social service personnel; ② there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the judgment of the court; and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the judgment of the court (the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was working in the market during the period of leaving office for the purpose of raising hospital expenses and monthly rent in the statement of grounds for appeal, but no relevant material was submitted), and other factors and statutory penalties that are considered to have exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion, or that maintaining the sentencing of the court below is unreasonable.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's argument during the sentencing.

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