2. In order to establish a national legal order and eradicate the light view of public authority, there is a need to strictly punish the act of obstructing the performance of official duties, the fact that the Defendant has been punished several times due to the crime of violence and damage to property (le to five times) and the fact that the police officer E suffered injury due to the Defendant’s crime of obstructing the performance of official duties.

However, there are extenuating circumstances such as the Defendant’s mistake against himself, and there has been no past history of punishment until now, the Defendant deposited KRW 500,000 for the police officer E, KRW 100,00 for the police officer G, and KRW 70,000 for the police officer G, the police officer G did not want punishment against the Defendant, the injury inflicted by the police officer E is not serious, the value of damaged articles is relatively minor, and the Defendant appears to have committed each of the crimes of this case by contingently taking into account all the sentencing conditions such as Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence, etc. In addition, it is not recognized that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable to the extent that the sentence of the lower court is reversed.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the 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.