2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). It is recognized that the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, destroyed the victim B’s vehicle by launching the victim B, and did not recover the damage even if he interfered with the performance of official duties by using violence against the police officer F who is performing legitimate duties.

However, there is no record of criminal punishment against the defendant, and the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal seem to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the court below, and there is no new change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines, such as the defendant's age, background of the crime, degree of damage, degree of damage, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below shall not be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be unfair because it is too low.

3. According to the 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.