The sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months, one year of suspended execution) is too unfluent.

Judgment

The crime of this case is committed against a police officer who was dispatched after receiving a report on the protective measures of a principal offender, by assaulting him, such as spathing flaps, and thus obstructing the execution of his duties. The crime of this case is disadvantageous to the defendant, and the defendant has been punished twice as a fine for the same crime.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions, including Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, and it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was led to his confession and his mistake in depth; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed the crime of this case by debrising sofacing; and (c) the damaged police officers’ damage appears to be relatively minor.

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.