2. The crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the Defendant, in order to establish the State’s legal order and to eradicate a state’s situation where it is necessary to strictly punish the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, such as this case, for the following reasons: (a) the criminal act of this case was committed against a police officer who was dispatched after receiving a report of 112, and thus obstructing the performance of official duties by assaulting him.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized his mistake; (b) there is no record of criminal punishment or criminal punishment exceeding the fine in the past; (c) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sex, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime; (b) the means and consequence of the crime; and (c) the various sentencing factors specified in the process of the trial and records, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too uneasible and unfair;

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 prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.