On October 4, 2014, the first of the criminal records in the criminal records of the judgment of the court below.

2. The judgment of the defendant has a record of being punished several times for the same kind of crime, including imprisonment, and in particular, the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case without being punished during the period of repeated crime for the same kind of crime, and that it has not been recovered from damage is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the following conditions are favorable.

Defendant said that he would not commit the instant crime against himself and will not repeat the crime.

The defendant seems to be in need of appropriate treatment because he suffers from stimulative disorder.

In addition, there was no significant result of the instant crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, and various sentencing conditions shown in the instant records and pleadings, 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.

However, among the criminal records in the criminal records of the judgment below, the phrase "for the obstruction of performance of official duties by the Gwangju District Court on October 4, 2014" is a clerical error in the crime of interference with business at the Gwangju District Court on October 7, 2014, and the second phrase "for the obstruction of performance of official duties" is a clerical error in the crime of obstruction of official duties, etc., so it is obvious that the phrase "for the obstruction of performance of official duties" is a clerical error in