Defendant

The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

The lower court rendered a sentence by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant did not appear in the trial while being tried due to interference with the performance of official duties and assaulting the police officers again while being tried; (b) the nature of the offense is not less and less light in light of the method of the crime; (c) the fact that there was a record of punishment regarding violence; (d) the Defendant led to confession and reflect by the Defendant; (e) there was no record of punishment regarding interference with the performance of official duties; (e) the Defendant did not know his writing well and has no economic difficulty; and (e) the Defendant was receiving medical care at a mental hospital due to the symptoms of exchange call around February 2015; and (e) the sentence was rendered by taking into account the Defendant’s age, sex, family relationship, home environment, motive and means of the crime;

In light of the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to the Defendant’s attempt to commit a fire to the present state structure in 2011, and in this case, it is not good to commit a crime, such as threatening the police officer by attaching a stop lamps, and even considering the fact that the Defendant did not seem to endeavor to recover from damage, the above sentencing condition of the lower court was significantly changed in the trial.

In light of the above, it is difficult to see that the sentence of the court below is too somewhat weak or unreasonable in light of the above factors.

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

In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.