2. In order to establish the legal order of the judgment state and eradicate the light of the public authority, there is a need to strictly punish the obstruction of the performance of official duties, and in particular, the Defendant’s crime interferes with the legitimate arrest of the police officer, and thus, the issue is somewhat weak.

However, considering the fact that the Defendant recognizes the instant crime itself and reflects on the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, and the details and contents of the instant crime, it is merely an act to the extent that the police officer appeared to arrest a person who committed a crime, by putting the hand and the hand of the police officer, and there is no act to take a bath or directly to the police officer in the process, and there is no act to inflict bodily harm on the police officer. While there is a somewhat limited violence, the Defendant has no record of the obstruction of the performance of official duties, and other circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing specified in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, and conditions before and after the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is deemed reasonable, and it is unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

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