2. Each of the instant crimes is a factor for sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the nature of the instant crime is considerably not good in light of the background of the relevant crime, specific details of the relevant crime, etc.; the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties requires strict punishment to establish public authority and legal order; and the Defendant previously committed a violent crime while under the influence of alcohol and has a record of being subject to criminal punishment.

However, it does not seem that the degree of assault against the crime of obstructing the execution of official duties of this case is serious, and the defendant is recognized as the crime of this case, and the defendant has committed an act against himself by finding the police officers, etc. who have direct damage, and deposit one million won to recover damage. The crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is not subject to the punishment of the defendant, and the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is not subject to the criminal punishment of the victim police officers, and only two times of fine criminal records are subject to sentencing factors favorable to the defendant.

In addition, considering the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentencing of the lower court is too minor than the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem that it does 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 appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.