2. The instant crime committed by the Defendant is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant that interferes with legitimate performance of official duties by exercising a direct tangible force on the body of the police officer dispatched by the Defendant upon receipt of a 112 report.

However, considering the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime, the fact that the victimized police officer actively expressed the Defendant’s intent to leave the Defendant’s seat, the first offender, and other favorable circumstances, taking into account the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, circumstances leading to the Defendant’s crime, means and result, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is appropriate, and the sentencing judgment by the lower court exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit, since the court below's punishment is too unfasible.

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.