2. Since the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is likely to disrupt social order maintained by the public authority, it is necessary to make a strict punishment in that the matter is not easy, and that the public authority’s prestige and social discipline should be immediately set up in order to create a social atmosphere in which the law and principles are observed.

Furthermore, there is a high possibility of criticism in that the defendant exercised the direct force against the damaged police officers who wear the uniform.

However, there is no circumstance that the lower court’s determination of sentencing exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion or it is unreasonable to maintain it, considering favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s recognition of the instant crime, the fact that there was no previous conviction, and the fact that there was no previous convictions in the same kind of crime, and comprehensively considering all the circumstances of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, means and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Therefore, as asserted by a prosecutor, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unreasonable as it is so unreasonable to the extent that the lower court ought to be reversed.

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.