2. 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). The Defendant, while taking a taxi, committed violence against a taxi engineer and a scambling as a matter of the safety ballast system, committed an act of assaulting a police officer on the face of a uniform worn out upon receipt of a report by a witness, and obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of official duties.

However, the defendant acknowledges his mistake and does not repeat again.

It is still a university student of the young age, and there is no criminal records punished until now.

In order to prevent the recidivism of the defendant, it seems clear that the relationship between the defendant's friendship and others seems to be clear, such as the defendant's active interest in preventing the recidivism.

Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the court below were without significant changes in the sentencing conditions compared to the original court, and the sentencing conditions stated in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, health and property status, family relationship and social ties, relation to victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., are not deemed unfair because the sentencing of the court below is excessively unreasonable beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

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