2. The instant crime committed by the Defendant, upon receiving a report 112, was committed against a police officer who was dispatched by the Defendant, and took a bath to the police officer, and thus obstructing the police officer’s lawful performance of official duties by assaulting him/her as he/she leads to the face of the said police officer, and thus, is disadvantageous.

In addition, in order to establish a law and order and eradicate the danger of public power, it is necessary to strictly punish police officers who wear their uniform to commit crimes that interfere with the performance of public duties.

However, there are favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects the mistake in depth, that the degree of assault exercised by the defendant is very minor, that the defendant deposited KRW 500,000 for the police officer damaged, that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same crime.

Considering the above circumstances and other various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s judgment cannot be deemed unfair to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or to maintain it as it is.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.

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.