2. The lower court rendered a sentence by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., in light of the following factors: (b) the Defendant’s act of assaulting the police officer dispatched upon receipt of a report and thereby obstructing the performance of official duties is not good; (c) the Defendant’s act of assaulting the police officer is against the depth of the mistake; and (d) the degree of violence by the Defendant was not serious; and (d) the circumstances that the Defendant did not have any same criminal record and did not have any criminal record more than a suspended sentence.

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

Although it is deemed that the prosecutor’s appeal is necessary to strictly punish a crime that interferes with the performance of official duties in order to establish a legal order, the above sentencing conditions have changed significantly in the trial.

It is difficult to see the above sentencing, and in light of the above sentencing’s comprehensiveness, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unfluent.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.