2. The instant crime committed by the Defendant, upon receiving a report from the police officer 112, is found to have committed the instant crime, by taking the face part of the police officer by his head without any particular reason, and booming the police officer’s hand, and is not good in light of the content of the crime, and thus, the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances are acknowledged, such as the fact that the crime is not good in light of the content of the crime.

However, it is reasonable to respect the defendant's confession of the crime in this case and reflects his mistake in depth, the defendant seems to have committed the crime in this case by contingency, the defendant has no record of punishment as a same kind of crime prior to this time, the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, has its inherent area in the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first trial, and the first deliberation sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The unfavorable circumstances against the defendant, which was recognized prior to the first trial, do not constitute a special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, and there is no other special circumstances that make the conditions for the sentencing as shown in the records and the theory of changes, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., it does not seem to be too unfair to sentence against the defendant.

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, “each statement report against E and F” in the column of evidence of the original judgment ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be corrected as “1. E and F each police statement report.”