2. The judgment of the defendant has a record of being punished by a fine due to other crimes, and the crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, such as the following: (a) the police officer E, dispatched from the police officer E, who was dispatched by the defendant due to a traffic accident that occurred while the defendant was waiting for the above accident and the driver's identity; and (b) the police officer's regular discipline was ordered several times on account of the fact that the police officer's participation in the crime is not good; and (c) the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties requires more severe punishment to establish public authority and legal order.

However, the Defendant did not have any history of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in contingency and impulsely as he was accused of the instant accident that occurred from the police officer under the influence of alcohol at the time, and therefore, he appears to have committed the instant crime. It is difficult to view that the damage suffered by the victimized police officer due to the instant crime is relatively excessive, and considering all the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, environment, character, and conduct, it is difficult to see that the sentencing of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable, and the prosecutor’s above assertion is without merit.

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