2. The Defendant expressed a great interest to police officers in performing official duties, or committed violence, and there is a need to strictize such acts in order to establish a national legal order and eradicate the light view of public authority.

The defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime, and did not reach an agreement with the victim of the crime of eviction and insult, and the victim of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

This is all the circumstances disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant shows his attitude to recognize and reflect all of his crimes.

Some crimes seem to have been committed in a state of weak ability to discern things due to mental illness where the defendant was suffering from ordinary mind.

The defendant's deposit one million won in favor of the victim of the offense of insult, and it seems that the victim of the offense of obstruction of the performance of official duties led to the police officer's intention to seriously commit the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties, and it does not seem that he did not make any effort to recover damage.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit, since the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible

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.