2. Determination

A. In full view of all the sentencing conditions, including Defendant A’s age, sex behavior, motive, frequency of the crime, method of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unaffortuous, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the crime; (b) there was no record of punishment other than twice a fine imposed on Defendant A; (c) the victimized police officer was the front wife; (d) the perpetrator was inflicted on the instant crime in the course of dealing with the traffic accident by the victimized person; and (e) the victim was injured by assaulting the police officer during the process of the traffic accident; and (e) the need for strict punishment against the crime obstructing the performance of official duties in order to establish the legal order.

B. In full view of the facts behind Defendant B’s confession and reflect on the Defendant’s crime, the primary offender, the fact that the victimized police officer was the front offender, the fact that the Defendant was committing the instant crime in the process of arresting the Defendant, etc., the nature of the crime is not good by assaulting the police officer on duty and causing injury to the Defendant, and the need to strictly punish the Defendant with respect to the crime interfering with the performance of official duties in order to establish the legal order, and other factors of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, motive for committing the crime, frequency of the crime, the number of crimes, and the circumstances after committing the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair as it is too uneasible.

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.