A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The judgment is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant, without any justifiable reason, insults another person by provoking a trial fee or by taking a serious bath, etc.; (b) even to police officers wearing a uniform, insults the police officers by a serious desire and use violent violence without discrimination; (c) the nature of the crime is not good; (d) there is no effort to recover damage; and (e) the Defendant has been punished twice by an act of violence; and (e) there is a history of having been suspended execution due to a crime of interference with the performance of official duties in 2014, which is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the circumstances favorable to the defendant are that the defendant confessions all of the crimes of this case and reflects his mistake, that is, it appears that the crime of this case is likely to take place contingently, and that the victim H does not want the punishment of the defendant.

In full view of various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, the process and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be too heavy, too heavy, or unreasonable since it is too low. Therefore, each of the unfair sentencing arguments by the Defendant and the Prosecutor are without merit.

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