2. The lower court sentenced the above punishment in consideration of the fact that the Defendant was the first offender and was against his mistake.

In addition to the circumstances taken into account by the lower court, the Defendant’s crime of this case, which was committed by the police officer, was committed by the Defendant, and was committed by violence, obstructing the police officer’s duty to maintain the order, as well as encouraging the light of the legal order and public authority, is highly likely to be criticized. In light of the above, the degree of assault against police officers cannot be deemed serious, and the Defendant’s age is old and healthy, shall be considered as favorable circumstances.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to view that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unfasible as the prosecutor asserts.

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.