2. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s mistake was pened and reflected in depth, and that there are some circumstances that may be somewhat taken into account the motive and background leading to the instant crime, and that the obstruction of the performance of official duties was not only detrimental to the function of the State’s legal order, such as nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, but also is also related to the safety of the general public, and thus, there is a need for a strict punishment corresponding thereto. In addition, the lower court determined a sentence by taking account of various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s criminal history, age, sex behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

The grounds for unfair sentencing (the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties requires strict punishment, and there is no agreement with the victimized police officer and no effort to recover damage) alleged by the prosecutor are shown to be the reasons that the court below already considered in determining the punishment against the defendant, and the above sentencing conditions have been changed in the trial.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The 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.