2. It is recognized that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties was committed by assaulting police officers dispatched after receiving a report by the Defendant, and that there is a need to strictize it since it is a crime detrimental to the function of the State by nullifying legitimate exercise of public authority.

However, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake; (b) deposited money for the recovery of damage to police officers who suffered damage; (c) the degree of injury to police officers is relatively minor; and (d) the fact that there was no record of punishment other than the punishment imposed due to a violation of the mid-term Management Act in around 1993; and (c) there is no special circumstance or circumstance that may be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment; (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime; and (e) various circumstances that form the conditions for the instant pleadings and the sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that

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.