2. Determination is that the nature of the instant crime is not good in light of the form of the instant act or the method of the commission of the crime, and the obstruction of performance of official duties is prejudicial to the function of the State by nullifying a legitimate exercise of public authority. Although the Defendant had served as a criminal for the same kind of crime, the Defendant is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant include the fact that the defendant recognizes his mistake as a substitute in the trial and reflects his mistake, and that the defendant has no criminal record of punishment exceeding the fine.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing a crime, circumstances after committing a crime, and various conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed unreasonable because it is too uneasible.

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.

(However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the “A victim E who is a slope” in Chapter 16 of the judgment of the court below is deemed to be a slope E, and the ex officio correction is made).