2. In full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and committed the instant crime; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime in a contingent manner under the influence of alcohol, resulting in the instant crime; (c) the Defendant again committed the instant crime; (d) there is no history of criminal punishment heavier than a stay of execution; (b) the Defendant did not want to punish the Defendant; (c) the instant victims did not want to punish the Defendant; and (d) the police officers’ damage was compensated for a certain portion of the damages incurred; and (d) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, criminal records, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the instant crime; and (e) it is deemed that the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable and unreasonable, and the Prosecutor’

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal of this case is without merit. It

[However, according to Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be amended to Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 201).