2. In order to establish a state’s legal order and eradicate a light of public authority, it is necessary to strictly punish a crime interfering with the execution of official duties. The crime of this case is committed by the Defendant while under the influence of alcohol, and was committed against the police officers who imprisoned him/her and prevented him/her from disturbing the disturbance for a considerable period of time, and there is no circumstance that may cause assault or intimidation by the Defendant during the police officer’s performance of official duties. However, there is no circumstance that the Defendant recognized the crime of this case, and the circumstance that the Defendant recognized the crime of this case is against the Defendant. The Defendant appears to have committed the crime of this case by reporting that he/she was arrested at the police box while under the influence of alcohol while under the influence of alcohol. The Defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment other than punishment of a fine due to drinking and bodily injury; the degree of assault and intimidation by the Defendant was relatively heavy; the Defendant’s act of assault and intimidation was committed after the lower court’s new judgment, and there were no circumstances and circumstances that the Defendant’s motive and motive of the crime of this case did not appear.

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.