2. The lower court determined that: (a) the crime of this case was committed against a police officer who performs legitimate duties and committed an insulting speech and behavior; (b) the Defendant has a large number of criminal records; and (c) the Defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he committed the crime even though he was under probation period due to the crime of this case; (b) the Defendant’s act was not committed against a police officer; (c) the Defendant did not engage in any act that may cause physical harm to a police officer; (d) the Defendant did not have the same kind of and violent criminal records; and (e) the Defendant was sentenced to a punishment against

There are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that are different from the sentencing conditions of the lower court until the lower court appears to have been determined appropriately by fully taking into account the above circumstances and up to the trial.

In addition, considering the various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as shown in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed unfair to the extent that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and so it exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.