Punishment sentenced by the court below by the public prosecutor is too uneasible.

(A) The prosecutor asserts that the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime on the grounds of unfair sentencing is unreasonable, even though he/she is found to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime. According to the evidence duly examined by the lower court, the lower court sufficiently recognizes the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol and lack the ability to discern things

No damage is serious to police officers.

The defendant shows his attitude to recognize and reflect the crime of this case.

Efforts are made to treat chronic alcohol addiction, which was the basis of the instant crime, to treat the instant crime.

A department store is working in a store and has a normal social life.

On the other hand, the defendant has been punished twice as a crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties (the suspension of execution of imprisonment and punishment), and again committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime as a crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties.

The damage of police officers was not recovered.

In addition, considering all of the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and family relationship, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy or unreasonable.

The defendant and prosecutor's assertion are without merit.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.