2. We examine the judgment. The crime of this case is recognized as obstructing the legitimate execution of duties by police officers dispatched after receiving a report 112, and the crime of this case is not good.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant was a primary offender with no history of criminal punishment; (b) appears to have reached the instant crime by contingently; (c) the Defendant’s fault against himself/herself; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment; (b) the background and consequence of the instant crime; (c) the degree of interference with the performance of official duties; and (d) the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and thus, deemed unfair

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 prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is clear that "Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was omitted in the application of the law of the judgment below." Thus, it is corrected to add it in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on the Criminal Procedure)