A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (unfair sentencing) on the Defendant (one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant, without a driver's license, starting from a police officer who is dangerous to demand a vehicle from a police officer who drives a vehicle without a driver's license, and thereby obstructing a police officer's legitimate performance of duties concerning the crackdown on driving of drinking, resulting in an injury requiring a police officer's medical treatment for about four weeks. It was evident that a police officer's exercise of public authority by a legitimate state agency was disarmed by violence, and the risk of the act was significantly high, and the degree of injury suffered by a police officer is minor.

It is not possible to see that the defendant has already been punished several times due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to drinking or non-licensed driving, etc., which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognizes his mistake and reflects against himself, that the police officer who suffered the injury and that he agreed with him, and that the social ties are maintaining normal social ties, such as the birth of the defendant's wife, is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of these circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances, and consequences of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy, or it cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too harsh.

3. According to the conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in entirety in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that there are no grounds.