2. The judgment of the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case even though he was sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million due to the obstruction of performance of official duties or injury in 2011 after being sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties or injury, 201 and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties or damage of property in 2012 during the probation period after being sentenced to a two-year probation period, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties or damage of property, and by force, he did not interfere with the duties of the police officer dispatched to the scene, and at the same time interfere with the performance of duties

However, in light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case in a drunken manner, the degree of damage is not severe, the defendant agreed with the victim C of interference with business, the defendant is divided into his own crime, and other matters prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are conditions for sentencing, such as the age, character and behavior and environment of the defendant as shown in the records and arguments in this case, it is not deemed unfair because the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

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.