2. However, the fact that the defendant was punished several times for the same type of crime, such as the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties and obstructing the performance of duties, in particular, that the defendant committed the crime of this case again without being aware of it during the period of suspension of execution due to the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, and that the damaged police officer wanting to punish the defendant, is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions in the records, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, occupation, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unaffortable and unfair, in so doing, it is not recognized that the above victim did not want the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with the victim of the crime interfering with the performance of duties. The crime of obstructing the performance of official duties of this case was committed several times by the Defendant, and the degree of exercising force is not limited.

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