2. Determination

A. The defendant not only interfered with the victim's drinking business, but also interfered with the execution of his duties by assaulting the police officer dispatched upon receiving a report. It is recognized that the nature of the crime is bad, and that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties requires strict punishment as a crime detrimental to the State's function by nullifying legitimate exercise of public authority.

B. However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of and against the instant crime; (b) the Defendant was the primary offender; (c) the Defendant paid one million won to the victim of the crime of interference with business in the lower court; and (d) appears to have agreed with the victim by paying one million won to the victim; and (c) the degree of assault against the police officer is not much serious; and (d) other circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing specified in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, circumstances leading to the crime,

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.