2. The crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, such as the following: (a) the defendant took a bath for a substitute engineer; (b) took a smartphone from the victim's smartphone to the victim; and (c) interfered with the police officers dispatched after receiving a report on the crime by the defendant on the crime; (d) the crime of this case is very poor in light of the method of the crime; and (e) the form of the crime; and (e) the establishment of a state law and order and the elimination of a light of public authority, it is necessary to punish the act of obstructing the performance of the pertinent official duties; and (e) the fact that there was a history of punishment for fines for the same kind of crime in 206.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant has committed a contingent act while making a confession of one’s own crime; (b) the degree of damage to the property of this case and interference with the performance of official duties is not serious; (c) there is a family member to support the Defendant; and (d) other various sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unfas

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.