2. The instant crime was committed by a police officer upon a report by a taxi engineer B, who was assaulted by the Defendant and was not paid a taxi fee, and the Defendant, despite the clothes and warnings of police officers who were performing official duties as above, obstructed police officers from exercising their legitimate official duties by using violence, and obstructed police officers from performing their official duties, and even after the police officers were arrested as a flagrant offender in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties and arrived at the police box, he continued to engage in acts that interfere with police officers’ legitimate exercise of public authority, such as avoiding riot, and thus, the nature of the crime is not somewhat weak.

However, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant reflects his mistake in the course of investigation from the criminal investigation to the trial; (b) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment as the primary offender; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, motive, developments, means, methods, and consequences leading to the instant crime; and (d) the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s sentence imposing a fine of KRW 2,00,000 is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's argument cannot be accepted.

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