2. The crime of this case was committed by a police officer who was called to show an identification card by the defendant who was under the influence of alcohol. The crime of this case was committed by the defendant at the time of the above police officer's demand for presentation of identification card, and its nature is not good, and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is related to the safety of the general public as well as the function of the legal order of the state, such as impairing the legitimate exercise of public authority, and thus requires strict punishment corresponding thereto. The defendant has some unfavorable circumstances to the defendant, such as the defendant's failure to receive a letter of confinement from the police officer or agreed to do so from the police officer in question. However, even until now, the defendant was the first offender, and the crime of this case appears to have committed a contingent act while under the influence of alcohol. The crime of this case is likely to have been committed by the defendant, the degree of interference with the performance of official duties by the police officer, the degree of damage caused by his father's business failure, which seems considerably difficult until now due to such economic circumstances.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.