2. In the case of the crime No. 1 of the judgment, the court below held that the crime of the crime No. 1 of the judgment was a single concurrent crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of Article 2 of the judgment was committed during the period of suspension of execution, and did not recover from damage. However, the above crime appears to have been caused by the fall of the judgment by the defendant's proof of alcohol dependence and the excessive accident, and the defendant was hospitalized to be treated for treatment in good faith in the future.

The sentence was determined in consideration of the fact that the defendant's age, sex, relationship with the victim, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

As the prosecutor asserts on the ground of appeal, it is recognized that there is a need to strictly punish a crime that interferes with the performance of official duties in order to establish the law and order, there are many criminal records against the defendant, and there are two times the punishment for interference with the performance of official duties, and that the defendant has repeatedly committed each of the crimes of this case.

However, such circumstance alone led to a significant change in sentencing conditions in the trial.

It is difficult to see that the above sentencing is unfair because the sentence of the court below is too unhutiled when comprehensively considering the above sentencing.

Therefore, 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 as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.