2. The Defendant: (a) thought that the police was forced to engage in the instant crime in the course of the Defendant’s act of destroying a flag in the main place under the influence of alcohol and accompanying another customer to the police station on suspicion of assaulting him/her; (b) he/she raised a complaint; (c) spits the face and sloping of the police officer on his/her head while taking a bath to two police officers; (d) he/she spits the face of the police officer; (e) spits the police officer, spits it into the face of the police officer; (e) he/she obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties; and (e) one of the police officers obstructs the police officer’s lawful performance of duties; and (e) one of them inflicted an injury requiring medical treatment for two weeks; and (e) in light of the background, mode, method, etc. of the relevant crime; and (e) did not make any effort to recover damage to the police officer up to the present; and (e) need to eradicate the Defendant’s normal performance of public authority and order.

However, in full view of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, including the fact that the defendant recognizes and reflects his/her mistake, that it appears that the defendant committed a contingent crime under the influence of alcohol, that the degree of injury is not serious, that there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine, and that there is no record of the same kind, etc., and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the punishment imposed by the court below is too uneas

3. In conclusion, 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.