2. It does not seem that new circumstances or special changes are likely to be reflected in sentencing after the decision of the lower court was rendered.

In light of the following: (a) the instant crime was committed by the Defendant, without any special reason, at the time of the police officer’s breath and her desire; (b) the nature of the relevant crime is not good; (c) the obstruction of the performance of official duties requires strict measures for the establishment of public authority and the protection of legal order; and (d) the Defendant has already been subjected to suspended execution due to the obstruction of the performance of official duties, without being aware of the fact that he had already been subject to suspended execution, and again again committed the instant crime during the suspended execution period, there is room to deem

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant had been detained for more than six months from the time the lower judgment was sentenced to the instant crime and had an opportunity to reflect on the instant crime, and that the Defendant deposited 1.5 million won to the victims and recover damage, the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It is not to the extent to be seen.

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