2. The lower court sentenced the above punishment by taking account of the following favorable circumstances: (a) the Defendant, upon receiving the 112 report, expressed a desire to and abused the police officer; and (b) this is highly likely to be criticized in that it interferes with the police officer’s duty to maintain order; (c) the Defendant may encourage the light of legal order and public authority; (d) the Defendant has a career of having been punished several times including imprisonment for violent crimes, such as injury; (c) the Defendant is currently recognizing and opposing his/her mistake; (d) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in a somewhat contingent manner while under the influence of alcohol; (e) the degree of assault against the police officer is relatively minor; and (e) the Defendant is not subject to punishment for the same kind of crime.

Even when taking into account the unfavorable circumstances that the Defendant’s nature of the crime is not negligible, if comprehensively considering the favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s assault was only once and the degree thereof is relatively minor, and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the Defendant’s crime, means and consequence, the scale of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing judgment cannot be deemed unfair to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or to maintain it as it is (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s allegation above is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.