2. In order to establish a judgment, establish a state’s legal order and eradicate the light of the public authority, there is a need to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties. It is recognized that there are several times of violence offenses committed by the Defendant, but the Defendant acknowledges and reflects his mistake, the degree of injury inflicted by the police officer is not severe, and the damaged police officer does not want the punishment of the Defendant due to the Defendant’s intentional act (it can be seen that the circumstances such as the public official who was the object of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, seeking a letter, etc., do not constitute a personal legal interest, can be seen as the circumstances leading to a serious reflection of the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, circumstance after the crime, circumstances after the crime, and all other matters concerning the sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, and thus, the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

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