2. The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance where: (a) the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, took a bath against the police officer and did assault; and (b) the nature of the crime is not good for the case; (c) the crime of interference with performance of official duties, such as this case, requires strict punishment in order to establish the state’s legal order and to eradicate the light view of public authority; (d) the Defendant did not receive any boom from the victimized police officer; and (e) the Defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the history of having been punished several times for the crime related to violence, even though he had been punished several times.

However, considering the favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime and the fact that the Defendant seems to have reached the instant crime by contingency, the degree of interference with the execution of official duties of the Defendant is not severe, the final criminal records related to the Defendant’s violence has been old before 27 years, and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, means and consequence thereof, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to be unfair as it is deemed unfair.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.