2. The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties in this case, upon receiving a report 112, filed a false civil petition against the police officer dispatched, and assaulted by drinking snow, and the quality of such crime is not less than that of the crime. In such a case of obstruction of the performance of official duties, a serious punishment is required in order to establish the legal order of the State and eradicate the light of the public authority, and the defendant also committed the crime of causing property damage.

However, all of the crimes of this case are recognized by the Defendant, and they reflect in depth, and they agreed with the victim of the crime of causing property damage. It seems that most of the damage was recovered.

There is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment because the degree of violence inflicted by the defendant to police officers is not hot, and new sentencing materials are not submitted in the trial.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, various sentencing conditions, including the circumstances after the crime, and criminal records, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable even if considering the various circumstances asserted by the prosecutor.

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.