2. The instant crime committed by the Defendant on the ground that the police officer called out after receiving a report of 112 that the Defendant was a person who was diving at a restaurant in the influence of alcohol, was assaulted by the police officer on the right hand by assaulting him/her at one time on the ground that he/she solicits him/herself to abscond and return home, and thus obstructing the police officer’s legitimate performance of official duties by assaulting him/her by driving him/her on two hand, and by driving him/her twice the chest part of the said police officer on two occasions, and the nature of the crime is not good.

In addition, in order to establish the legal order and eradicate the danger of public power, it is necessary to strictly punish police officers who wear their uniform to commit crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties.

However, there are favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime and reflects the Defendant’s mistake in depth, the Defendant’s absence of criminal records exceeding the same criminal records or fines, and the Defendant’s agreement with the victimized police officers.

Considering the above circumstances and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the judgment of the lower court cannot be deemed unreasonable to have exceeded or maintained the reasonable bounds of discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal 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.