2. The crime of this case is an act of assaulting a victim police officer who was called out after the defendant was reported that he was a substitute engineer or a substitute non-payment problem, and expressed his desire to do so to the victim police officer, and thus, the nature of the crime is not good. In order to establish the state's legal order and to eradicate the light of public authority, the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, such as this case, needs to be punished strictly, and the degree of injury to the victim police officer, etc. is more severe.

However, it is advantageous to the following: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime by contingency; (b) the Defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment prior to the instant crime; (c) the Defendant paid KRW 2.8 million to recover the damage of the victimized police officer; and (d) the victimized police officer did not want to punish the Defendant.

In addition to the above circumstances, taking into account the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, its means and consequence, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the prosecutor’s above assertion is without merit.

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.