2. The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant, where the Defendant received a report on 112, thereby damaging the bitle section of the patrol car that was dispatched by the Defendant. The crime of this case was committed by assaulting a police officer and obstructing his legitimate execution of his duties. The crime of this case is not weak, and the State’s legal order is established and the public authority is established and it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant for the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties in order to eradicate the light of public authority.

On the other hand, there is no record of criminal punishment before the defendant, recognition of the crime of this case and reflects the truth in depth at the time of the crime of this case, the degree of tangible force exercised by the defendant is relatively minor, and the defendant deposited KRW 1 million for the police officer who suffered damage to the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, and paid all repair expenses incurred by the crime of damage to public goods, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the court below’s punishment is too unfasible and unfair, 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 as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.