2. The following facts are the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant appears to have abused a police officer without any particular reason; and (b) the offense of obstruction of performance of official duties is a crime detrimental to the function of the State by nullifying a legitimate exercise of public authority; and (c) the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is a crime that

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant is both aware of his own crime and is against the defendant, the degree of violence against the police officer of the defendant is not serious, the defendant seems to have committed the crime of death with the truth to the damaged police officer and sought a letter, and the fact that the defendant again expresses that he will not act again in the future is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances that led to the instant crime, including the background and motive leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the age of the Defendant, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s allegation above is without merit.

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, on the first page of the lower judgment, it is obvious that the “place of registration” in the fourth sentence is a clerical error in the nationality, and thus, it is decided to rectify it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.