2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists a unique area of the first instance in the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance 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). The Defendant used violence against the police officer dispatched after receiving a report while gambling.

The crime of obstructing the execution of official duties of this case is a crime that undermines the function of the State by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, and thus requires the corresponding punishment to establish national legal order and eradicate the light of the public authority.

However, the defendant shows an attitude against the police officer to recognize each of the crimes of this case, and the degree of assault used by the police officer is relatively weak, and there is no record of criminal punishment prior to each of the crimes of this case.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and the trial process, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be unfair because it is too unfeasible.

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.