2. The Defendant’s crime of obstructing the performance of official duties in this case requires strict punishment as an offense that undermines the function of the State by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority.

Since the degree of interference with the assault of this case and the execution of official duties is not somewhat poor, the quality of the crime is also very poor.

However, the defendant has not committed a second offense, reflecting the mistake of crime in depth.

Prior to the crime of this case, the Defendant did not have any particular criminal history except for punishment once a fine is imposed for the crime of this case.

It is also recognized that the degree of injury suffered by the victim police officer of the instant case is not relatively much serious.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unobcied.

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 appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.