2. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant, which threatens his employees to display two weeks of disease, takes a bath against the police officer called out after receiving a report on the said disturbance, and took an assault, and thereby obstructing his business by avoiding disturbance in restaurants on a 15th day thereafter, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, such as the instant case, need to be punished, the degree of interference with the performance of official duties, the Defendant’s failure to agree with the victims, and the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes despite having been punished several times of violence, is disadvantageous.

However, it seems that the defendant has committed each of the crimes of this case in a state of alcohol, and the defendant seems to have committed each of the crimes of this case in a contingent manner while under the influence of alcohol, and the mental illness, such as stimulative disorder of the defendant, and the current symptoms of mental disorder, seems to have influenced the degree of each of the crimes of this case. The victim I expressed his intention not to punish the defendant in an investigative agency, the defendant has no criminal record exceeding a fine, and the family members of the defendant have complained of the defendant's wife.

In addition to the above circumstances, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background leading up to the instant crime, means and consequence thereof, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case records and arguments, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair as it is frightened.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and thus, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.