2. The crime of this case is disadvantageous to the following: (a) the Defendant committed several assaults against a uniformed police officer to interfere with his/her performance of duties; (b) the offense of obstruction of performance of official duties requires strict punishment to establish legal order; and (c) the fact that the Defendant was unable to take advantage of his/her police officer.

However, it is necessary to respect the judgment of the court below because there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court below because new sentencing data have not been submitted at the court below. In full view of the circumstances and result of the crime of this case, including the fact that the defendant reflects the crime of this case in depth, that the defendant committed the crime of this case in a contingent manner under the influence of alcohol, that the defendant did not have any specific criminal record other than once a fine of small amount, that the defendant did not have the previous record and had been sentenced for 20 years prior to the previous record and had been sentenced for 30 years at the same residential area, and that the defendant faithfully lived while engaging in 20 years at the same residential area, and other various circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, character and behavior of the defendant, environment, age, etc.

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