2. The fact that the Defendant’s direct exercise of force against the police officer does not constitute a crime, and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is considered to be disadvantageous to the sentencing, and thus, the fact that the Defendant’s crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is likely to seriously undermine the legitimate public authority.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided; (b) the first offender without any criminal conviction; (c) the police officer who suffered damage wants to take the Defendant’s wife; (d) the substance and degree of damage caused by the use of the crime; and (e) other various sentencing conditions, including the background of the crime in this case; (b) the means and methods of the crime in this case; and (c) the circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.