2. The instant crime committed by the Defendant is an act of assaulting a police officer subject to sanctions, such as destroying a display stand at the convenience store in the influence of alcohol, and breaking a book glass, which is a public object, at a police station. In light of the details, contents, etc. of the instant crime, the liability for the instant crime is not exceptionally imposed.

Moreover, even though the Defendant had been subject to criminal punishment due to the past crime of interference with the performance of official duties and damage to public documents, it is necessary to impose strict liability on the Defendant in that he/she committed the instant crime.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake and speaks against the Defendant; (b) the Defendant did not want a punishment against the Defendant under an agreement with the victim of the crime of property damage in the course of the investigation; and (c) has compensated for the damaged public goods; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime; and (b) various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, it cannot be deemed unfair

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. 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 without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.