2. Determination of the obstruction of performance of official duties is an offense that undermines the function of the State through legitimate exercise of public authority, and there is a need to punish such an offense, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s degree of violence used as a crime of this case cannot be deemed that the Defendant is light, and the Defendant has the power to be punished as a crime of violence, etc., it is reasonable to place the Defendant on

However, there may be also be circumstances to consider the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant has made a confession of all crimes, the fact that the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency in the course of arresting him as a flagrant offender with respect to the crime of drunk driving, and that he has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, there is no special change of circumstances that make the lower court and the punishment different from the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

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.