2. The judgment below rendered a sentence above in consideration of the following circumstances: (a) the crime of this case was committed by the defendant under the influence of alcohol by assaulting the police officer F, who was found to have been reported and obstructed the main business by the victim C and vagabonds due to the drinking price problem; (b) the victim C and C expressed a desire to commit violence to the victim C; and (c) destroying and damaged the flooder that was in the main place; and (d) the crime was committed; (c) the crime of this case was extremely poor; and (d) the defendant was committed by obstructing the execution of official duties for a period of one year after being sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months due to interference with the execution of official duties and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year; (d) the possibility of criticism is high in that the defendant committed the crime of this case; (e) the defendant's mistake was recognized; (e) the degree of exercise of force exercised by the police officer; and (e) the victim C and C did not want the punishment of the defendant by agreement with the victim C.

Even in light of the circumstances that are disadvantageous to the Defendant’s nature of the crime, if the assault against the Defendant’s police officer was only once and the degree of the assault is relatively heavy, and considering all of the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed unfair to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or maintain it as it is (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, the prosecutor’s allegation above is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.