2. The judgment of the court below, although the Defendant’s crime of this case is a crime that has impaired the State’s function by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, there is a need to severely punish the Defendant. However, the Defendant is aware of the mistake, and there is no criminal record, and there is no criminal record, and the degree of assault inflicted by the Defendant to police officers is deemed to be relatively serious, and the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency under the influence of alcohol, and taking into account the motive and background leading up to the instant crime, circumstances leading up to the instant crime, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, occupation, family relation, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unfeasible.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.

However, it is clear that the application of the law of the court below, "1. commercial concurrence" and "1. of detention in a workhouse," have omitted the selection of a fine for negligence. Thus, it is corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

.