A. The punishment imposed by the lower court (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. We examine both the judgment and the prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing.

It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court solely on the ground that the sentencing of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, although the sentencing of the first instance court falls within the scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime of this case was committed against a police officer who was reported at the main point and was dispatched by the Defendant without any justifiable reason, and thus obstructing the legitimate performance of official duties by assaulting and threatening the police officer, and is in bad quality of the crime, and is in need of strict punishment for the crime of public authority, such as the instant crime, in order to establish

However, the fact that the defendant is recognized as committing the crime of this case and is against the defendant, there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the same kind and fine, and the fact that the defendant is not adequate for economic conditions as a basic living beneficiary is favorable.

Furthermore, considering the following facts: (a) there is no special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court after the pronouncement of the lower judgment; and (b) the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, the environment, the circumstances surrounding the crime, and the circumstances after the crime; and (c) various sentencing conditions specified in the present case’s records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed as excessive or unreasonable; and (d) the Defendant and the prosecutor’

3. Conclusion, the defendant and the prosecutor.