2. The obstruction of performance of official duties requires strict punishment for a crime detrimental to the State’s function by nullifying a legitimate exercise of public authority, and the fact that the crime is not good, such as threatening a police officer in performing official duties to take three times along with his/her bath, threatening him/her as drinking, etc., are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, however, considering the fact that the defendant shows a strong attitude of reflectivity while recognizing the crime of this case, the fact that there are no other criminal records as a result of a fine imposed once due to a drunk driving, etc. in favor of the defendant, as well as the fact that there is no other criminal records. In addition, comprehensively taking into account the defendant's age, character and conduct, and environment, the sentence of the court below is deemed to be within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and it cannot be deemed that the above is unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal 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.