2. In order to establish the legal order of the judgment state and eradicate the light view of the public authority, there is a need to strictly punish the act of obstructing performance of official duties. In particular, the instant crime is a matter of exercising the direct tangible power against the police officer who demands him to return home by paying the drinking value, and the nature of the instant crime is not negligible.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) the Defendant appears to be against the truth; (c) the Defendant appears to be a contingent crime; (d) the Defendant did not have the same criminal power; (c) the Defendant appears to have been detained for about one month in the instant case; and (d) the Defendant appears to have the time to reflect the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances before and after the instant crime; and (e) other circumstances, which are the sentencing conditions specified in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and conditions before

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.

(However, according to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, "victim" is added in front of "F" in Chapter 19 of the original judgment.