The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable as it is too unfasible to the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, the observation of protection).

2. There are circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the Defendant did not have been subject to criminal punishment for the same crime; (b) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes without being subject to criminal punishment for the same crime; and (c) the Defendant committed an injury to a police officer to the extent that he exercised physical power to the police officer in the process of arresting the Defendant as a current offender interfering with his duties; and (d) the nature of each of the instant crimes committed by the police officer to the extent that he did not be disadvantaged; and (b) there is no need to strictly punish the Defendant in a way that the police officer s

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant fully acknowledges each of the instant crimes; (b) there is no history of criminal punishment of suspension of qualification or heavier punishment; (c) the Defendant appears to have committed each of the instant crimes in contingency under the influence of alcohol; and (d) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and theories of changes, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, family environment, specific developments leading up to the instant crimes, and the circumstances before and after the instant crimes, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too uneasible and thus, is unreasonable. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s allegation above

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 42 proviso of the judgment of the court below on the three-dimensional basis is obvious that it is a clerical error, and it is corrected as ex officio deletion under Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure).