2. In light of the fact that the Defendant used violence against police officers in the course of performing official duties to inflict an injury on one of them, and that the nature of the offense was grave, and that the injury was not recovered to police officers, strict punishment against the Defendant is necessary.

However, in full view of the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and divided it in depth, there is no record of criminal punishment, and other circumstances of all the sentencing as shown in the records and pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That in the criminal facts column of the judgment of the court below, “the defendant gives him/her attention to the victim,” it is obvious that he/she will hold office in G, and thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.