The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of five million won) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendant to the said punishment.

The circumstances cited by the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal are already factors that have sufficiently taken into account while determining the punishment in the original judgment. There are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the pronouncement of the original judgment.

Considering the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant exercised a considerable force on the body of a police officer, and the nature of the offense is not good considering the circumstances of the case, the sentencing of the lower court is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, in view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s depth reflects the Defendant; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed contingent crimes; and (c) the Defendant has no record of having been punished in excess of the fine due to

In addition, comprehensively taking account of all the factors of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, the sentence of the court below is too unfasible.