2. The Defendant, who is performing his duties, took a serious bath and inflict an injury upon a police officer who has performed his duties. The extent of the obstruction of the performance of official duties is serious and the nature of the crime is not good, the act of obstruction of the performance of official duties against a police officer in uniform requires strict punishment in order to enhance the people's trust in the national public authority, and the fact that the Defendant has a record of having received juvenile protective disposition several times as a crime related to violence is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant makes a confession of the crime of this case late and reflects his mistake, the fact that the police officer who suffered the damage seems to have been neglected, and the fact that the injury suffered by the police officer is minor is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances that led to the instant crime, including the circumstances and motive, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments and records, there is no change in circumstances to determine different sentences from the lower court. As such, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable, the Prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is rejected.

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