2. In determining the sentence against the Defendant, the lower court rendered a sentence by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances that are the sentencing conditions specified in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, career, home environment, motive for the commission of the crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, taking into account the fact that the nature of the instant crime committed by the police officers insulting and assaulting the police officers performing official duties is not good, and that the Defendant was committed at the time of the instant crime, and that the Defendant had endeavored to recover the victims’ damage.

Examining the above sentencing of the lower court in light of the record, the lower court’s determination of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

There is no change in circumstances that can be seen as being unfair to maintain the sentencing of the court below in the trial. Thus, the court below's punishment cannot be deemed as unfair because it is too appropriate and too unhutiled.

The prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

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