As to this, the prosecutor appealed on the ground of unfair sentencing only for the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, the dismissed part of the judgment below became final and conclusive.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is highly likely to commit an offense, such as taking the face of a police officer, in the course of arresting a police officer dispatched after receiving 112 report.

Therefore, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 3 million is unreasonable as it is too unfasible compared to the Defendant’s liability.

3. Taking into account the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor, considering the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim of the damage to property, the Defendant again expressed an attitude to seriously reflect the Defendant’s wrongness while leaving that the Defendant would not mislead the victim of the damage to property, and the Defendant’s primary offender was the first offender, and other various circumstances, such as the circumstance, motive, means and consequence leading up to the instant crime, the situation before and after the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc., as well as the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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

However, the criminal facts of the judgment of the court below are as follows: K's "C" under Paragraph 1 (2) of the same Article, and the 3rd's "Dnoby club" are as follows: "Mnoby club", and "G" under Paragraph 2 (3), (4), and (5) are as follows: "J" and evidence.