2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). Although the degree of tangible power exercised by the Defendant to police officers is more severe, the Defendant has no same criminal record and has no history of punishment heavier than the fine.

The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal are already considered in the sentencing process of the court below, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, health condition, and economic condition as shown in the arguments of the lower court and the lower court, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or is unfair because it is too unhued.

3. According to the 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.