2. The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties is an offense that undermines the function of the State through the legitimate exercise of public authority, and there is a need to punish the Defendant, and the Defendant, in light of the unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the inside part of the victimized police officer was inflicted upon his head and the injury was caused in the course of the obstruction of the performance of official duties, and the liability for the crime was not somewhat weak, should be imposed on the Defendant.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the crimes, thereby against the mistake; (b) the degree of injury suffered by the victimized police officer seems to be relatively heavy; and (c) the Defendant made efforts to recover damage by depositing KRW 1 million to the victimized police officer; (d) the Defendant suffered from the symptoms of sulfur disorder from around 2012 to need continuous treatment and assistance; (e) the Defendant appears to need continuous medical treatment and assistance; and (e) other favorable circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed appropriate within the discretionary scope.

In addition, since there are no circumstances to regard that the sentencing conditions have changed in the trial, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below.

Therefore, prosecutor's sentencing and warning cannot be accepted.

3. Since the appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.