The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. The defendant committed the crime of this case against a police officer who is under legitimate execution of official duties, such as drinking, eating, taking his hair on his head, continuously booming, taking a brut, and committing a crime of this case by using violence. In light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case and its contents, etc., the crime of this case is not good, and the crime of this case is committed against the defendant when he committed the crime of this case even though he had the same record as a suspended sentence of two years due to the obstruction of performance of official duties, even though he had been sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime and committed the instant crime for about 40 days of confinement; (b) the Defendant made efforts to compensate for damages by depositing KRW 1 million in the lower court for the victimized police officer; and (c) other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, family environment, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, the Defendant’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, from among the application of the written judgment of the court below, the phrase "1. Selection of the sentence: Each of the "the choice of imprisonment" and "1. Concurrent Crimes: The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravated Punishment as to the Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties againstG) are clearly written errors, and thus, it is obvious that such deletion is ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure