The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (4 million won in penalty) that the court below rendered by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

2. The crime of this case is acknowledged that each of the crimes of this case is committed by assaulting a police officer who performs official duties, obstructing the performance of official duties by the defendant, avoiding disturbance within the police station boundary, and there is a need to strictly punish the police officer in light of the recent public power situation, and that the police officer did not receive a letter from the injured police officer.

However, considering the following facts: (a) the Defendant made a confession of all crimes while committing the crime, and there is no history of punishment heavier than the fine, and there is no other history of punishment for the same kind of crime; and (b) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes; and (c) all of the sentencing conditions specified in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasy and unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, 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 364(1)3 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the “victim, who is a security guard,” among the judgment of the court below, “victim,” in each of the following subparagraphs 4,4, and 5 acts, is obvious that the “victim, who is a police officer,” is each clerical error of the “police officer,” and the “victim, who is a security officer,” in each of the seven acts, is correct ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on the Criminal Procedure.