2. It is recognized that the obstruction of the performance of judgment on official duties is an act that makes the legitimate exercise of public authority circumvents and undermines the function of the state’s legal order, and requires strict punishment, and the Defendant has the power to be subject to criminal punishment three times for violent crimes.

However, it is recognized that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected against the defendant, that the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case by contingency while suffering from mental illness such as stimulative disorder, etc., that there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine of the defendant, and that the defendant deposited KRW 20,000 for the victim E.

In addition, in full view of the various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the judgment of the lower court, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unfeasible and unfair.

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.