2. The crime of this case is determined in light of the following circumstances: (a) the crime of this case was committed by the defendant when the defendant went to the earth along with the taxi driver due to the problem of taxi rate and caused the injury by assaulting the victim police officer demanding the identity verification; (b) the nature of the crime is not good; (c) the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties like this case requires strict punishment in order to establish the state's legal order and to eradicate the light of public authority; (d) the defendant led to the confession of the crime; (e) the degree of damage suffered by the victim police officer is relatively minor; and (e) the extent of damage suffered by the victim police officer is relatively minor; (e) favorable circumstances such as the defendant's age, behavior, environment, and the balance of sentencing with the same and similar incidents; and (e) the motive and background leading up to the crime of this case; and (e) the means and consequence thereof; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the prosecutor's assertion as above is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, ex officio “1. Commercial concurrence” column of the law of the court below’s application of the rules on criminal procedure is corrected to add “1. Selection of selective fine” below.