2. The crime of this case is acknowledged that the Defendant assaulted a police officer who performed official duties and obstructed the performance of official duties, and that there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant in light of the recent situation of public power, the fact that the victimized police officer did not receive a letter, the Defendant was punished five times a fine, and the fact that the Defendant has criminal records subject to punishment once a suspended sentence.

However, in light of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable, and thus, is not deemed unreasonable, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of the crime; (b) there is no history of punishment for the same kind of crime; (c) the degree of assault is relatively minor; and (d) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingently; and (d) the Defendant’s age

Therefore, 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 as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.