2. The instant crime was committed by a police officer upon receipt of a 112 report, and was committed by assaulting the head by drinking. The nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime. Such obstruction of performance of official duties requires serious punishment in order to establish a state’s legal order and eradicate the light of public authority.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case, is in depth and is against the depth, and the degree of the assault inflicted by the defendant is not hot.

In addition, there is no record of punishment for the same crime, and there is no record of criminal punishment after 2003 even for the same crime.

In addition, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment because new sentencing data has not been submitted in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.