2. Determination

A. According to the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists an area unique to the first deliberation regarding sentencing in light of the fact that the sentencing exists in the court of first instance, and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, etc., if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first deliberation sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). (B) The instant crime is a crime of intimidation against three police officers dispatched by the Defendant after receiving a report on the Defendant’s disturbance on two occasions under the influence of alcohol, and the nature of the offense of obstructing the performance of official duties is not good, and in view of the fact that there is a need to strictly deal with the Defendant in order to establish the public authority and protect the legal order, etc.

However, in full view of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is too unfasible and unfair in light of the following: (a) there was no special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court after the pronouncement of the lower judgment; (b) the Defendant recognized the error of the lower court; (c) there was no power that exceeds the same kind of power or fine for the Defendant; and (d) other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and family relationship.

Therefore, 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 on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.