2. The fact that the Defendants jointly assaulted two police officers to commit the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties is not very good; the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties is serious because it is against the legitimate public authority and thus it is necessary to do so; the victim from the crime of this case is added to the police officers; and Defendant A has multiple criminal offenses including the same criminal records.

However, the court below compared the evidence of this case with the following facts: (a) the defendants agreed to or deposited money with some victims; (b) Defendant C and D did not have any criminal record; and (c) Defendant B had only one criminal record prior to a fine; and (d) the defendants appear to have committed any contingent crime while drinking alcohol; (c) all the defendants recognized the crime and divided the defendants; (d) there are several persons who want to be able to live in prison for a certain period of time; and (e) Defendant A had been detained in this case for a certain period of time; and (e) considering various sentencing conditions, such as the defendants' age, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; (e) circumstances after the crime; and (e) details of the crime committed by each defendant, it cannot be said that the court below sentenced the defendants to an excessive minor punishment beyond the limits of reasonable discretion in making a decision on sentencing against the defendants.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.