2. In determining the crime of this case, the following circumstances are acknowledged: (a) the Defendant’s abusive act was 112 reported to the police officer F, who was dispatched by the Defendant after being 112, and obstructed the performance of official duties by sculing his fats; and (b) the case was not less complicated in light of the content and circumstances of the crime; and (c) in order to establish the state’s legal order and eradicate the light of public authority, it is necessary to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, such as the instant crime.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected the mistake; (b) the Defendant was the primary offender; (c) the Defendant was a family member to support the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment; (b) the process and consequence of the instant crime; and (c) the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

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