2. The judgment of the defendant interferes with police officers' legitimate execution of duties concerning traffic control and the prevention of traffic danger by assaulting a police officer, such as cutting a bicycle with a motor device that is a dangerous object, and the method of the crime is very dangerous, as well as the quality of the crime is not good.

Furthermore, it is true that there is a need for a more strict punishment against the defendant, taking into account the circumstances that the crime of abusing violence against police officers, such as the crime of this case, may hinder the establishment of legal order and undermine the authority of the public authority.

However, considering the following circumstances, comprehensively considering various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and consequence of the crime, the sentence against the Defendant is given within the scope of the court’s sentencing discretion, and is light enough to avoid reversal.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

① The Defendant has yet to reach his age, and the Defendant has recognized the instant crime and does not repeat the instant crime again.

It is harding to do so.

② The Defendant: (a) killed D, who is the police officer, with respect to the instant crime; and (b) D did not want to be punished by the Defendant.

(3) There is no particular criminal offense against the accused except once a juvenile protective disposition.

(4) The defendant's large abandoned places living together with the defendant will be considered as having an active interest in preventing the recidivism of the defendant.

There are many things.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.