2. The lower court, under the favorable circumstances that the Defendant led to the confession and the violation of the Road Traffic Act, was fined once, and the Defendant did not have any other criminal record, determined a sentence by taking account of the unfavorable circumstances, i.e., the fact that the instant crime was committed against the police officer who wear the uniform.

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 pointed out by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, it is recognized that the defendant's two legs close the police vehicles on which the victimized police officer was on board so that both legs can wear the door to inflict an injury, and the danger of the crime is heavy and the quality of the crime is not good.

However, taking this into account, the sentencing conditions mentioned above have been significantly changed in the trial.

It is difficult to see the foregoing sentencing, and in full view of the sentencing conditions, such as the oil, Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, means, and consequence, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair merely because it is too unreasonable.

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.