2. The crime of this case was committed against two police officers in the course of performing official duties by exercising violence against the two police officers, and destroying the toilet partitions, which is a public object, and the responsibility for the crime is heavy. In the case of interference with the performance of official duties, it is inevitable to punish the defendant in order to establish the state's legal order and eradicate the light of public authority, and the police officers still want to punish the defendant, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant, or the defendant shows an attitude against his mistake. The crime of this case is the first offender who has no record of crime, and there is a possibility of sufficiently edification improvement as the young age of 22, and other factors such as character, home environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the punishment imposed by the court below is unfair because it is too uneasible.

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