All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The instant crime committed by the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, assaulting D, who is a disabled person of Grade II with physical disability, was injured by the Defendant; the police officer called to the site and demanded a drinking test; the police officer took a bath to nearby global teams; the police officer continued to commit active assault, such as taking the police officer back to the earth; and the police vehicle and the police station in order to escort the police officer from the earth to the nearby police station to the nearby police station is very poor to commit the instant crime.

Furthermore, although criminal records have been used in seven years prior to the year, there are many criminal records of similar nature such as seven times of punishment and five times of suspended sentence due to assault, etc., and there are considerable social risks of defendants.

As such, the prosecutor's argument that the six-month sentencing sentenced to the defendant is less appropriate cannot be denied.

However, it is unreasonable that the sentencing of the court below against the defendant is too low enough to reverse it in full view of the fact that the defendant has recognized his mistake in the past time, that the defendant is aged and has a physical and hearing disability 4, that the degree of injury to the victims is not much serious, and that the degree of injury to the victims is not much serious, and that the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments in this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, occupation and environment, etc.

It does not seem that it is too heavy or too heavy.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the judgment of the court below is clear that the entry of "L" in Part 5 of the judgment below is a clerical error, and it is in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.