2. The lower court: (a) took into account the following circumstances: (b) the Defendant expressed a desire to the police officer in uniform and took violence; and (c) given that such act is likely to cause criticism in that it interferes with the police officer’s duty to maintain the order; and (d) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in a somewhat contingent and contingent manner under the influence of alcohol; (b) the Defendant is currently recognized of his mistake and is in contravention of the law; and (c) there is no history of punishment for the same kind of crime, taking into account the favorable circumstances, the lower court sentenced the above punishment.

Even when taking into account the unfavorable circumstances that the Defendant’s nature of the crime is not light, the degree of assault by the Defendant is relatively minor and, in full view of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant was committed or the Defendant’s drinking is not directly contacted with the police officer, and all other sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the Defendant’s crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s judgment of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or is unfair to maintain it as it is (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Accordingly, the prosecutor’s allegation above is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.