2. Although the Defendant had been punished three times by a fine due to the obstruction of performance of official duties or the obstruction of performance of duties, the fact that the Defendant again committed the instant crime; the obstruction of duties and the degree of assault against the police officer; and the fact that both the victim of the obstruction of performance of duties and the victim of the obstruction of performance of official duties want to be punished by the Defendant is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the facts of crime, there is no history of punishment exceeding a fine, and there is no history of punishment other than that of a crime of interference with business in 2009 once in 2017, and all the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, and circumstances after the crime, which are favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that there is no history of punishment other than that of a crime of interference with business in 2017, and the records of this case and the changes of the case

The prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, 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.