2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court when there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principles, the lower court’s interference with the performance of public duties is not only detrimental to the function of the state’s legal order by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, but also is also related to the safety of the general public, and thus, it is necessary to punish the criminal who is in need of strict punishment. In addition, the Defendant’s failure to reach an agreement with the victimized police officer, the Defendant’s confession and seriously reflects the criminal act by drinking only, and the Defendant’s allegation that is not subject to punishment for a reasonable punishment of two times.

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 appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.