2. Determination of the crime of this case is acknowledged that the Defendant’s crime of this case was insulting to a police officer who takes charge of performing official duties, and the liability for the crime is not less severe; the Defendant has been sentenced to a fine for up to two hundreds of times, the Defendant has been subject to a suspended sentence, and among them, has the record of being punished for the same crime; the Defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the suspended sentence due to the crime of injury; and the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim.

However, in light of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unfeasible and unreasonable, in light of the following factors: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of the crime; and (b) the Defendant’s punishment is deemed unfair.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 70(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the application of the law in the judgment of the court below is obvious that the “Article 69(2)” was omitted due to this error, and thus, it is corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on the Criminal Procedure.