2. The crime that interferes with the performance of official duties of police officers, such as the instant case, is not good in that it seriously undermines police officers' pride and desire to work and eventually causes damage to them to the general public. However, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in his principal state contingently, and the damage itself caused by the instant crime is relatively minor; the Defendant has no record of punishment for the same type of crime; the Defendant has no record of punishment; the Defendant’s age, character, behavior, intelligence and environment; equity with similar cases; the background leading to the instant crime; the means and method of the instant crime; the circumstances after the instant crime; and the circumstances after the crime, etc. do not seem to be unfair because the lower court’s punishment is too uneasy and unfair. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion is not acceptable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.