A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendant (five million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. We also examine the judgment prosecutor and the defendant's respective arguments relating to sentencing.

The crime of this case is not a case where the defendant bucks and faces a police officer's buck, and assaults and uses a direct force, such as buckbucks, and there is a high need to punish him as a crime interfering with the exercise of public authority.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant finds a victim police officer and seeks a letter of tolerance is against his own wrongness, there is no particular criminal punishment for the defendant, and the fact that there is no social ties between the defendant and the social ties is clearly favorable to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, circumstances leading to the Defendant’s crime, means and consequence, and all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant records and pleadings, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is appropriate and the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, as the prosecutor asserts that the sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible or unreasonable, or it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable as the defendant asserts, so the prosecutor's and the defendant's above assertion are without merit.

3. In conclusion, all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit. Thus, all appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.