2. In the case of obstruction of performance of official duties, the Defendant is not aware of the instant crime during the period of probation, and a serious punishment is required to establish a state’s legal order and eradicate the danger of public authority.

However, the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, is in depth and is not subject to punishment for the same kind of crime.

In addition, the victim expressed his intention that he does not want to punish the defendant, and the damage seems to have been most recovered.

In addition, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment because new sentencing data has not been submitted in the trial.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, various sentencing conditions, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, are deemed unreasonable even if considering the various circumstances asserted by the prosecutor, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible.

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.