2. The act of causing harm to a police officer on duty, such as the instant crime, is an act of causing damage to the trust of public authority, and thus requires strict punishment for eradicating public authority, and the fact that the Defendant was punished by an act of violence is disadvantageous to the Defendant, and the fact that the degree of violence committed against the Defendant police officer is not much much significant is favorable to the Defendant.

The lower court appears to have determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by taking account of all the conditions of sentencing indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the aforementioned favorable or unfavorable circumstances to the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and there is no change in sentencing conditions to deem that maintaining the sentencing of the lower court is unfair. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unfair.

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.