The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (3 million won in penalty) declared by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

2. The act of assaulting a driver of a motor vehicle in operation, such as the instant crime, in addition to the possibility of criticism on the crime itself, is very dangerous act that may cause damage to a third party’s body or property by causing additional accidents, such as traffic accidents, and thus, requires strict punishment. It is recognized that the act of assaulting a police officer who performs official duties and obstructing the performance of official duties also requires strict punishment in consideration of the recent situation of public authority.

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant was a primary offender; (b) the Defendant was in depth of his mistake; (c) the Defendant agreed with the victimized driver; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment; (b) the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (c) all of the sentencing conditions stated in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unaffortable and unfair

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 70 of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, since it is obvious that the application of the law in the judgment of the court below is omitted by this mistake, it is obvious that the “Article 70 of the Criminal Act” was omitted from the “Article 70 of the Criminal Act” following the “Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure