2. The judgment follows: (a) the Defendant not only caused a traffic accident while driving under the influence of alcohol while receiving an accident report, but also did not comply with the request of a police officer to take a drinking test; and (b) the above police officer did assault the above police officer; and (c) considering the circumstances asserted in the trial as an element of sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant in light of the criminal background, even though the prosecutor asserts in the trial as an element of sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant, the Defendant is a primary offender who has no record of criminal punishment; (b) the Defendant was sprinked to the Defendant with no record of criminal punishment as a substitute for the instant crime; and (c) was merely sprinked once by the victim police officer’s buckbucks, so it is relatively insignificant to the extent of violence; and (d) the Defendant is a beneficiary under the National Basic Living Security Act, which is difficult to economic circumstances; and (e) the Defendant is taking account of the following factors: the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, and circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the sentencing judgment of the lower court is too beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.