2. The judgment of the court below, although the Defendant’s crime of this case is a crime that has impaired the State’s function by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, there is a need to severely punish the Defendant. However, the Defendant is in violation of the Defendant’s wrong recognition, and there is no particular criminal force except for the punishment of fines twice due to a crime different from the crime of this case before 20 years have passed, and the Defendant appears to have committed the crime of this case in a contingent manner under the influence of alcohol, and the other police officer already received a letter from the other police officer, expressed his/her intention that he/she is not subject to the Defendant’s punishment, and taking into account the motive and background leading up to the crime of this case, the circumstances before and after the crime, the Defendant’s age, character, environment, occupation, family relation, etc., it cannot be said that the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the court below is unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.

(However, since it is clear that the "Security E" among the facts constituting the crime of the judgment of the court below is an error of each slope E, it shall be corrected as an ex officio correction in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.