2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant without any particular reason by assaulting a substitute driver who was operating his own car, resulting in an injury requiring medical treatment for about two weeks, and by assaulting the police officer, such as verbal abuse, while arrested as an offender and waiting for a police box, and obstructing the performance of official duties by obstructing the police officer, and the nature and circumstances of the crime were inferior, and the Defendant had been punished as the driver’s assault even before the crime of this case was committed, etc., which are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

The fact that the defendant recognizes all of the crimes of this case and is in depth against the defendant, there is no history of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, and makes efforts to have the ability to regulate drinking and stress, such as consultation with the Health Center after the crime, and the injured person is not punished against the defendant by agreement with the driver of the driving agency of the injured person, and the accused's person also wanting to have the defendant's prior position is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above points, Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, etc., and the result of the application of the sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.