2. Determination is that the illegality of the instant crime that the Defendant interfered with the police officer’s performance of official duties and inflicted an injury on the police officer, and that the Defendant has eight criminal punishment records, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the circumstances such as the fact that the victimized police officer did not want the punishment of the defendant and wanting to take the defendant's wife against the defendant, that the defendant thought that he did not commit any crime any more late, and that the defendant's wife is leading the defendant, and that the defendant is faced with severe stress due to the treatment of the children born in Habnman on January 2017, the immediately preceding day of the instant case, and that the defendant is expected to commit the instant crime as a contingency, it is reasonable to determine the sentencing of the court below within the reasonable scope of discretion, taking into account the following factors: the defendant's age, sex, occupation and environment, background leading to the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc.

Therefore, we cannot accept the prosecutor's unfair argument of sentencing.

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.