2. The instant crime of obstructing the performance of official duties by causing a police officer to sculbling a police officer who was called out while taking a dispute at a convenience store under the influence of alcohol and obstructing the police officer’s performance of official duties. As such, the instant crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, such as the instant case, needs to be strictly punished because the Defendant’s crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, as it is in violation of legitimate public authority, and the Defendant did not agree with the police officer who is the victim.

However, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, considering all the favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, and circumstances leading to the instant crime and circumstances after the instant crime, etc., in light of the following as a whole: (a) the Defendant’s primary offender recognized the instant crime and reflects all the criminal acts; and (b) the Defendant recognized that there was no record of punishment except for the punishment imposed due to a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents around 2008.

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 as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.