The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s imprisonment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of community service) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. On the other hand, the Defendant committed the instant crime, which threatened the police officers dispatched after receiving a report of 112, with approximately 45 cm of length, which is a dangerous object, and “I am dead. I will am dead. I will be relieved of it. I will be relieved of it.” In light of the dangerous method of the instant crime, the circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, and the contents, etc., the crime is disadvantageous to the police officers.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime and had a deep reflective time through the prison life for about 40 days; (b) the first offender who had no record of the instant crime before the instant crime was committed; and (c) other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, family environment, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, Article 14 and Article 136 of the Criminal Act provides that "the relevant provision of the law concerning criminal facts: Articles 144 and 136 of the Criminal Act shall apply to the applicable provision concerning criminal facts: Articles 144 and 136 of the Criminal Act;

1. Commercial concurrences: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Selection of punishment: because it is obvious that it is an error in the decision of imprisonment: Ex officio correction is made in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure;

.