2. On January 18, 2018, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence and probation for six months of imprisonment with labor for the crime of interference with business, etc. on January 26, 2018, which became final and conclusive on January 26, 2018. The Defendant has the record of having been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. twice (2007, 2015), and the Defendant has the record of having been sentenced to criminal punishment several times for other crimes, and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is a crime that undermines the function of the State through legitimate exercise of public authority, and there is a need to punish him/her heavier punishment. In light of the unfavorable circumstances

However, in full view of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder caused by a man-made illness, the Defendant appears to have not good health conditions such as being judged at a level of 5 degrees of a defect, in addition to a man-made disease, and the need for medical treatment and assistance. In this case, the degree of assault inflicted by the Defendant in the instant case is not relatively heavy, and other factors for sentencing indicated in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is determined to be appropriate within the discretionary scope, and there are no circumstances to deem that the sentencing conditions have been changed in the trial.

Therefore, the prosecutor does not accept the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion 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.

[However, since it is obvious that the "right to return" in Part 6 of the judgment of the court below in Part 2 of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the "right to return", it shall be corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.]