2. The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant, including the following: (a) the defendant takes a desire for a police officer who has a legitimate duty to perform his/her duties; (b) interfered with the performance of his/her duties; (c) interference with the main business; (d) the nature of the crime is not good in light of the motive and means of the crime; (d) interference with the performance of duties requires strict punishment in order to resolve the clibing of legitimate public authority and establish legal order; and (e) the defendant has been punished five times as a fine, including a fine imposed once by the same kind of crime.

However, considering the fact that the Defendant is led to the instant crime, that the Defendant agreed with the police officer of the crime of interference with the performance of official duties at the lower court, that the Defendant does not want the punishment of the Defendant, that is, the social relation of the Defendant is clear, and that other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, means and result of the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and theories on changes, such as the circumstances after the crime, are too uneasible and unfair.

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 appeal is without merit.