2. In order to eradicate the danger of public authority and establish a State’s legal order, there is a need to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties. The victimized police officer only called up twice after receiving a report of the Defendant’s disturbance and soliciting the Defendant to return home, and there are no circumstances that may cause the Defendant’s assault in the course of performing official duties, etc., that are disadvantageous to the Defendant, or that the Defendant recognizes and reflects the instant crime, that the Defendant appears to have caused the instant crime by drinking, that the degree of assault that the Defendant used by the victimized police officer is relatively minor, that the Defendant did not have any history of punishment for the same crime before the instant case, that the Defendant did not have any history of assault committed by the victimized police officer, that there was no other circumstances or changes in circumstances that are newly considered in the sentencing after the judgment of the court below was rendered, and that there is no other factors or changes in circumstances that are newly considered in the sentencing process of the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc.

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.