2. The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant, such as the following: (a) the crime of this case was committed in a manner that interferes with a police officer’s legitimate performance of official duties by means of cutting bridges of a police officer who was dispatched after receiving a report by the defendant; (b) the nature of the crime was not good; (c) there was a record of criminal punishment twice as an violent crime; (d) there was no agreement with the victimized police officer up to the trial; and (e) there was a need to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties in order to establish the state’s legal order and eradicate the danger of public

On the other hand, there is no record of criminal punishment or criminal punishment exceeding a fine for the same kind of crime prior to the recognition of the crime of this case and the mistake against the defendant, and the fact that the degree of assault against the victimized police officer is relatively minor, and that it appears to have reached the crime of this case contingently, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and other factors of sentencing, including the background of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, etc., as seen above, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable. Therefore, the 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.