The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s sentence (3 million won in penalty, confiscation) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

2. In the case of a crime of interference with the execution of the special duties of this case, the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being aware of multiple punishment, including one previous convictions, in light of the background of the crime, the tool and method of the crime, etc., which may cause danger to the life or body of the police officers, and the liability for the crime is not easy. The Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case, which are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, this case is an contingent crime caused by the defendant's mental illness, such as a bipolartic disorder and depression, and the victims of interference with the performance of special duties do not want the punishment of the defendant under the consent of the defendant, in the case of the crime of causing bodily harm caused by negligence, the degree of the victim's injury is relatively excessive, in the case of the crime of causing bodily harm caused by negligence, the defendant is recognized by all his mistakes, and has consistently been treated for mental illness, and the defendant's family will make efforts to treat the defendant.

The court below's punishment seems to be within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable in full view of all the conditions for the sentencing of the defendant's family relation, economic circumstances, age, sexual conduct, environment, and the circumstances after the crime.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act on the part of “the reduction of mental and physical harm” among “the application of the law of the court below is a clerical error in Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act. Thus, it is obvious that it is a clerical error in Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the ex officio correction is made under Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.