2. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant is deemed to have committed an obstruction of performance of official duties by exercising the power of the Defendant’s apartment security guards, obstructing apartment security services, and assaulting the police officers dispatched after receiving 112 reports. In light of the content and circumstances of the crime, the nature of each of the instant crimes is not easy.

Furthermore, it is necessary to impose strict liability on the defendant in that the defendant committed the same kind of crime even though he had been punished for obstruction of performance of official duties in the past.

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized the entire mistake of the Defendant; (b) the degree of the type used by the Defendant was relatively not much serious; (c) the Defendant agreed with the victim of the crime interfering with business during the trial process of the lower court; (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime; and (e) various conditions of sentencing as shown in the oral argument, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, circumstances after the crime; and (e) the scope of recommended sentences (one to one year and eight months) according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court, the sentence imposed by

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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