2. The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance where the Defendant destroyed or damaged the PED indications, etc. owned by the victim F and obstructed the performance of official duties by assaulting a police officer dispatched after receiving a report thereon, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the crime of interference with the performance of official duties is highly likely to be punished for the purpose of establishing national legal order and eradicating the climate of the public authority.

However, it is advantageous to the following: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) agreed with the victim of the damage to property; (c) found the victimized police officer; and (d) deposited KRW 1 million for the police officer; (b) the degree of interference with the performance of official duties was relatively weak; and (c) there was no criminal record other than twice of the fine.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence, there is no special change in circumstances that may otherwise determine the sentencing conditions and the punishment different from the original judgment, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unfeasible and unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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.