The sentence of the lower court (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of order to attend a law-abiding lecture) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Although the Defendant was waiting to commit a crime after the conclusion of the oral argument in the lower court, there was no attitude of reflecting the police officers who actively filed a complaint with the police officers for the crime of direct assault and actively denied the suspicion of refusal to measure drinking, and instead, it is very good that the Defendant appears to assume all responsibility to the police officers.

However, considering the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s confessions of and reflects the crime late, there is no history of punishment exceeding the same criminal record or fine; and (b) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, consequences, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the present case’s arguments and records, including the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment after 201, and there is no record of criminal punishment, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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