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.

Moreover, the Defendant is highly likely to criticize the Defendant in that he exercised the force directly against the victimized police officers who wear the uniform.

However, there is no circumstance that the lower court’s determination of sentencing is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or to be unfair to maintain it as it is, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, degree of injury, means and consequence of the offense; and (b) all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, degree of injury; (c) the means and consequence of the offense; and (d) the circumstances after the commission of the offense.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Therefore, as asserted by a prosecutor, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unreasonable as it is so unreasonable to the extent that the lower court ought to be reversed.

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.