2. The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties is a crime that undermines the function of the State by nullifying a legitimate exercise of public authority, and thus requires strict punishment in order to establish the legal order of the State and eradicate the light of public authority.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s mistake recognized by himself/herself; (b) the victim of fraud and indecent act by compulsion did not want the punishment of the Defendant; and (c) there was no special change in circumstances after the pronouncement of the lower judgment; and (d) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

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.

However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the phrase "application of the law" of the judgment of the court below ex officio shall be corrected on 1.1. that the phrase "Article 298 of the Criminal Act" is amended to read "Article 298 of the Criminal Act" as "Article 298 of the Criminal Act".

.