2. The lower court determined the sentence by taking into account the following facts: (a) the degree of assault is not limited; (b) Defendant A was a first offender; and (c) Defendant B was punished twice by a fine for a violation of the Act on the Establishment of Local Reserve Forces; and (d) there was no record of criminal punishment; and (c) the Defendants were divided and contradictory

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

Although it is recognized that there is a need to strictly punish a crime that interferes with the performance of official duties in order to establish the legal order as asserted by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, the sentencing conditions as mentioned above have been significantly changed in the trial.

It is difficult to see the above sentencing, and in light of the above sentencing’s comprehensiveness, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unfluent.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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