2. Determination:

A. The crime of this case by Defendant A committed an assault against a police officer dispatched by the Defendant upon receiving a report of 112, and the nature of the crime is not weak, and the degree of the assault committed by the Defendant does not seem to be simple. It is also true that the Defendant has already been punished several times due to a violent crime, and it is also necessary to severely punish the Defendant.

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and divided his mistake; (b) the Defendant was not subject to punishment for violent crimes against public officials; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime; and (d) other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unfeasible and unreasonable.

B. It is also true that Defendant B committed the instant crime by assaulting a police officer who was trying to arrest Defendant A, the first executive of the Defendant, as a current criminal, after receiving a report of 112, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime, and thus, it is also necessary to punish the Defendant.

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime as a primary offender and divided his mistake; and (b) taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (c) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. The Prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.