2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant again committed the instant crime during the period of probation is disadvantageous to the sentencing, or that the Defendant recognizes and reflects the offense, the Defendant’s consent is nothing more than the victim E, that the said victim does not want the punishment of the Defendant, that the Defendant deposited KRW 70,00 for the police officers, that the degree of interference with the performance of public duties is not more serious, and that the Defendant did not have any criminal record of interference with the performance of public duties, and that the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable and does not seem to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion.

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