2. The judgment of the Defendant was made by using Aluminium shot net to threaten the victim. In light of the risk of tools, the Defendant committed an assault against the police officer dispatched upon receipt of the report, which is disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as the following: (a) there is a need to strict commission of such crime in order to establish the national legal order and eradicate the light of public authority; (b) it is difficult for the Defendant to receive a letter from the victimized police officer or to find out the circumstances in which he/she made efforts to recover from damage.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant appears to have committed a crime; (b) the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment before committing the instant crime; (c) the Defendant appears to have committed a special intimidation in the process of resisting the Defendant’s failure to receive benefits; (d) some of the motives may be considered; (c) E does not impose the Defendant’s punishment; (d) the victim of a special intimidation does not impose the Defendant; and (e) the degree of assault accompanied by a crime interfering with the performance of official duties was relatively excessive; and (e) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant records, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

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.