2. The lower court sentenced the above punishment by taking account of the favorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s act of this case was committed against the police officer in uniform, and the Defendant’s act of assault was committed, thereby hindering the police officer’s duty to maintain the order; and (b) the Defendant’s act of assaulting the police officer’s order and encouraging light view of the legal order and public authority; and (c) the Defendant’s mistake is against the police officer; (d) the first offender; and (e) the degree of assault against the police officer does not seem to be significant.

In full view of the fact that there are no other circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court, and other circumstances of all the sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, means and result, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence imposed by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and furthermore, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its 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.