2. The lower court sentenced the above punishment by taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the instant crime was committed under the influence of alcohol and was committed by a public official in the performance of official duties, and that the Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties, and that the responsibility for the crime was not less than that provided, the Defendant’s mistake was divided and reflected, the injured party was not subject to the punishment of the Defendant by agreement with the victim, and the Defendant was punished by the obstruction of the performance of official duties, or that there was no record of punishment heavier than the suspension of execution.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions, other than the circumstances considered by the court below, including the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, health, circumstances leading to a crime, means and result of the crime, size of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence of the court below appears to be appropriate, and the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to view that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unfasible as the prosecutor asserts.

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.