2. The Defendant, including his previous convictions, had the record of criminal punishment several times, committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and three months due to the crime of injury, and completed the execution of the sentence, and committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact during the period of repeated crime. The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, such as the instant crime, requires strict punishment in order to establish the legal order of the State and eradicate the public peace.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case, is in depth and reflects the depth, and the degree of exercise of tangible power by the defendant is not hot.

In addition, the crime of this case is a special injury crime, etc. for which judgment has become final and conclusive, and a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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