2. It is recognized that the instant crime committed by the Defendant by assaulting a police officer who performed official duties and obstructing the performance of official duties, and that there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant in light of the recent public power lighting; three times of fines; criminal records subject to suspended execution once, and the fact that the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victimized police officer.

However, in light of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of the crime; (b) there is no history of punishment for the same kind of crime; (c) the likelihood of the instant crime appears to have committed by contingency; and (d) the degree of assault is relatively minor; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.