2. The following determination is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant.

The crime of this case is not likely to be a crime because the police officer, who was dispatched to the police after receiving a report on the entrance door of a person who may know of the defendant under the influence of alcohol, uses violence to the police officer to interfere with his performance of duties, and subsequently arrested the police officer as a current offender interfering with the performance of official duties, and harming the inside facility of the patrol vehicle after boarding the patrol vehicle.

In order to protect legitimate performance of official duties and establish a sound social order, it is necessary to strictly punish a violation of official duties.

In the past, the defendant has been subject to criminal punishment due to the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties and damaging public goods.

On the other hand, the following conditions are favorable.

The defendant is recognized as committing a crime and is against the law.

The degree of violence against damaged police officers and interference with the performance of official duties is relatively minor.

The birth of the defendant fulfilled the damage of the public goods.

There is no history of criminal punishment for the defendant after 2001.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances following the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., as well as the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit, since the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and it is not deemed unfair.

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.