The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, and forty hours of community service order) on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the above legal principles, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and if the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground of the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the above legal principles, it is not recognized that the court failed to submit new data on sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and even if all the grounds for sentencing specified in the argument of the instant case are comprehensive, the first instance court’s sentencing is too excessive, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.