2. Since the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is likely to disrupt social order maintained by the public authority, it is necessary to make a strict punishment in that the matter is not easy, and that the public authority’s prestige and social discipline should be immediately set up in order to create a social atmosphere in which the law and principles are observed.

However, considering the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant led to the instant crime and reflects his mistake in depth, the fact that the Defendant found the victimized police officer after the occurrence of the instant case, that the Defendant agreed on January 20, 2016, that the Defendant had no record of punishment, and that there was no record of punishment.

In full view of all other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances leading to the Defendant’s crime, means and consequence, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s judgment is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion or to be unfair to maintain them as they are, and there is no other circumstance where it is deemed that the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, as asserted by a prosecutor, it is difficult to deem that the above sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

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