However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime, and there is no history of punishment for obstruction of performance of official duties, and there is no criminal record exceeding fines; (b) the Defendant actually failed to pay the drinking value due to the misunderstanding of G, a singing room, even though he was unable to pay the drinking value due to the loss of the wall; and (c) the police officer sent to the scene in the situation where he was sexually flag and was flaged by H, he would have committed the instant crime in a somewhat unreasonable manner; (d) the Defendant appears to have committed any contingent crime; (e) the degree of the assault used by the police officer is relatively minor; and (e) the degree of the assault used by the police officer is relatively minor; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the lower court (three million won) is too unreasonable.

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

However, in the application of the law of the lower judgment, the phrase “1. In the case of detention in the workhouse” under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act is apparent that the phrase “Article 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act” is a clerical error under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act, and thus, it is apparent that it is a clerical error under Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Thus, the ex officio correction

.