A. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the defendant (4 million won a penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The circumstances are advantageous to the following, such as the Defendant’s confession and confession of the instant crime, the degree of interference with the execution of official duties is not significant, and the Defendant has no record of the same kind of crime and no criminal record exceeding the fine, the Defendant’s health status is good, and the Defendant appears to be economically difficult circumstances.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant, who was dissatisfied with the traffic control of the police officer, and was committed by the police officer one time, and the nature of the crime is not good. In order to establish the State’s legal order and to eradicate the light of public authority, the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, such as this case, requires strict punishment, and the Defendant did not receive suspicion from the victimized police officer.

In addition to the above circumstances, there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the pronouncement of the lower judgment, and considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, its means and consequence, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court and all of the sentencing conditions stated in the records and the previous theories, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, are deemed appropriate. Thus, the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.