2. In light of the fact that the instant crime was committed by a police officer on official duty, and that it may interfere with the exercise of strict public authority, and impair the morale of police officers, the liability for the instant crime is not weak, and that the Defendant has a criminal record of having been punished for the same kind of crime, it is necessary to punish the Defendant significantly.

However, in full view of all the circumstances, including the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and agreed against the victim police officers, the fact that the defendant sought a letter of tolerance and agreed to all the damaged police officers, the defendant is responsible for the livelihood of the wife and the children who are juveniles, the defendant is living in good faith, and many of them wanted to live in the highest living, and there are no criminal records that have been punished beyond the fine, and other circumstances that form the elements of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, occupation, environment, sex, sex, family relation, health status, motive and circumstance of the crime, motive and method of the crime, crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing 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.