2. The act of causing harm to police officers in the process of performing duties, such as the instant crime, is likely to undermine public authority’s trust, and thus requires strict punishment in order to eradicate the clibity of public authority.

However, considering the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, and circumstances after the crime of this case, the court below's punishment is too uneasible and unfair, and thus, the prosecutor's assertion is without merit. Thus, the prosecutor's opinion is without merit, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the defendant's criminal act of this case is acknowledged, and there is no punishment history; (b) the police officer and the police officer who committed the crime of this case agree with the police officer and the police officer.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure)

1. The relevant provision of the law regarding criminal facts deleted the phrase “the choice of each fine (the commission of a crime is bad, or the defendant has no criminal record, and there is no criminal record, and the damaged police officers have recovered the damage and received a letter by making a smooth agreement)” from the relevant criminal facts.

1. Following the ordinary concurrence, the term “a punishment choice (the commission of the crime is bad, the defendant has no criminal record, and the defendant has recovered damage to the damaged police officers and received a letter by making a smooth agreement)” is changed and corrected.