2. The act of obstructing the performance of official duties is an unfavorable condition to the Defendant in that it interferes with the establishment of legal order and undermines the authority of the public authority.

However, the defendant suffered difficulties in appraisal adjustment due to the influence of ordinary depression, etc., and seems to result in the crime of this case in a drunken state, and the damaged police officers also expressed their intent not to be punished against the defendant after being subject to a true apology of the defendant, and the fact that the defendant is able to repent his/her mistake in depth is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the judgment of the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

In addition, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in circumstances that it is unreasonable to maintain the sentencing of the lower court in the

Therefore, the prosecutor does not accept the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing.

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