2. The crime of obstructing the performance of official duties requires a more severe punishment to establish public authority and legal order, and the Defendant repeatedly committed the instant crime even though he/she had the past record of having been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment by obstructing the performance of official duties, etc., is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment except for a crime of interference with official duties in 2010 by committing the instant crime; (b) the police officer did not have serious degree of assault due to the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant is taking into account the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the instant crime; and (d) all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant argument, including the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance after the instant crime, etc., it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.