2. After being punished as a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, the Defendant committed the instant crime by taking the police officer’s desire during the repeated crime period.

However, all these circumstances are the circumstances in which the court below has already considered or was present at the court below's decision of punishment.

In full view of the following: (a) the lower court sentenced the upper limit of a fine to the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant appears to have been prosecuted for insult rather than obstruction of performance of official duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do1204, Dec. 26, 1989); and (c) other various conditions of sentencing specified in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s character and conduct, relationship with the victim, motive and means of the crime; and (b) circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to evaluate that the lower court’s determination of sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion; and (c) there is no change of circumstances that may be newly considered

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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