However, since only the prosecutor appealed on the ground of unreasonable sentencing only for the guilty portion of the judgment below, the dismissal of prosecution became final and conclusive as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below rendered against the defendant (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unhued and unfair.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). A criminal record for a defendant is identical to that for a victim B, the defendant inflicts bodily injury on the victim B, and the police officer interfered with legitimate performance of duties.

However, in full view of the various circumstances shown in the records and arguments of this case, the victim B expressed his intention not to want the punishment of the defendant at the court below, the victim B wanted to be the first step in the trial, and the defendant wanted to be the second step in the trial, and the special assault and injury that the defendant denied at the court below, which were led to confession and reflect in the trial. The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant is not weak.

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