2. The crime of this case was committed on the spot after the defendant was reported to avoid disturbance, and it was committed against the victim police officers who want to take the defendant's house at the site, and the nature of the crime is not good. In order to establish the state's legal order and to eradicate the light of public authority, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties like this case requires strict punishment. However, in the meantime, the defendant's confession is against the defendant, and the degree of the defendant's assault or obstruction of the performance of official duties is relatively minor; the victim police officers do not want the defendant's punishment; the defendant did not want the punishment; the defendant did not have any history of punishment; the defendant did not have any history of punishment; the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment; the defendant's motive and background leading up to the crime of this case; the means and result; the situation after the crime; and all the sentencing factors indicated in the records and changes in the theory of this case, such as the records and changes after the crime, the prosecutor's assertion that the court below's punishment is unfair is not justified.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, ex officio under Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, “the pertinent legal provision on the crime of 1. Criminal Procedure” column of “the pertinent legal provision on the crime of 1.