2. The crime of this case is established under the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant committed an assault against a police officer called out after receiving a report on a disturbance from an apartment corridor and obstructing the legitimate execution of his duties by the police officer; (b) the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by the State is not deemed to require strict restraint; (c) the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by the State is not committed in order to protect legitimate performance of official duties and to establish a sound social order; and (d) the Defendant did not receive a letter from an injured police officer so that he/she was forced to go

On the other hand, there are also circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime, the degree of damage to the instant crime is relatively minor, the Defendant appears to be considerably low compared with his intellectual ability or recognition and mental maturity level, the Defendant committed the instant crime in a contingency while under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment other than once a fine.

Considering the above circumstances comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, environment, occupation, family relationship, circumstances leading to the instant crime, and various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.