2. The crime of this case is a bad condition that the Defendant committed dangerous acts that may lead to a large-scale accident, such as cutting off gasoline, threatening the prosecutor’s office, and threatening the Defendant to put fire. The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties requires strict punishment to establish legal order, and even if the Defendant had had been punished twice due to the obstruction of performance of official duties, repeated the crime of this case, despite the fact that the Defendant had been punished twice due to the obstruction of official duties.

However, it is necessary to respect the judgment of the court below because there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court below because new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the court below. The defendant reflects the crime of this case in depth, and no damage has occurred in response to the direction of the police officer assigned for special guard who was proposed by the defendant at the time of the crime of this case, and the defendant is under mental treatment for about ten years, and these mental disorder seems to have an impact on the crime of this case, and the defendant has a visual disorder and is making it difficult for a basic living recipient. In full view of the circumstances and result of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime of this case, the character and conduct of the defendant, the environment, and age of the defendant, etc., as well as various other circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case

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.