2. The Defendant’s crime of this case committed by the Defendant is an unfavorable circumstance against the Defendant, on the other hand, insulting a police officer in the course of performing official duties, obstructing the performance of official duties by assaulting a police officer, and engaging in an act of disturbance to revoke a police officer’s bath even after a police officer’s commission on the earth, and thus, cannot be said to be somewhat disadvantageous.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and recognized his mistake is favorable to the defendant, that the defendant did not have any record of punishment for obstruction of performance of official duties or insult, that there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, and that the degree of violence against the police officer does not seem to be heavy.

Considering the above circumstances and other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed appropriate as a punishment within the scope of the discretion of sentencing.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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