2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and direct principle, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of motive, method, etc., the Defendant interfered with the execution of duties of the police officer under the influence of alcohol to prevent the Defendant from measuring her friendly drinking, which is bad in light of motive, method, etc., the Defendant has the record of punishing five times a fine due to violent crimes, but it is recognized that the Defendant entirely recognizes the crime of this case, there is no history of punishment exceeding the fine, and the degree of the Defendant’s use of violence is particularly significant.

It is difficult to see the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime. Considering all the sentencing conditions as indicated in the records and the theory of changes, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable. Thus, the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.