2. The fact that the nature of each of the instant crimes was poor, that there was six criminal punishment against the Defendant, all of which are related to violent crimes, and that the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties requires strict punishment to establish public authority and legal order, etc. are elements for sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant.

However, it is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that it does not directly harm the body of the victimized police officer in relation to the obstruction of the performance of official duties, the degree of assault is not much serious, the fact that there was no criminal record of interference with the performance of official duties, and the fact that the defendant recognizes his mistake.

In addition, considering the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to be unreasonable because it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or is too heavy.

3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant is without merit, it is dismissed in entirety in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.