2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have suspended sentence in consideration of the following: (a) the Defendant is against the Defendant; (b) the degree of damage to the victimized police officer; (c) the degree of obstruction of performance of official duties or the degree of tangible capacity committed by the Defendant is relatively minor; (d) the Defendant suffers from severe depression; and (e) the Defendant suffers from severe depression due to these symptoms; and (e) the Defendant was the initial offender; and

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and circumstances after committing an offense as revealed in the arguments of the lower court and the lower court, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentence exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or is too unjustifiable.

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.