2. In order to establish the legal order of the judgment state and eradicate the light of public authority, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties needs to be punished strictly, the defendant can have the same criminal record, and the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of suspension of execution of the same crime is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant acknowledges each of the crimes of this case, reflects the mistake in depth while living for 80 days in custody, is a contingent crime, and that the defendant should support the father and the mother of the first degree in visual disability.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and the circumstances and results of each of the instant offenses, all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable. Therefore, the Prosecutor’

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