2. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant, which interfered with restaurant business by avoiding disturbance at a restaurant, or committed an injury by using violence, even after the Defendant was arrested by a police officer and was arrested as a flagrant offender, is not good. The crime of obstructing the instant business and obstructing the performance of official duties is not easy. The crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, such as this case, needs to be punished, and the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes even though he had a record of having been punished several times for violent crimes, is disadvantageous.

However, there are favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s confession of each of the crimes in this case, the Defendant appears to have committed each of the crimes in this case, the degree of injury in this case is not severe, the Defendant did not want the punishment of the Defendant under mutual agreement with the victim D of the crime interfering with the business in this case, the Defendant deposited one million won to recover damage by the police officer, and the Defendant’s last record of the crime in relation to the violence in this case was old before 25 years.

Considering the above circumstances and other circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, its means and consequence, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case records and arguments, it cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower court is uneasible and unfair.

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 prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.