2. It is recognized that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is a crime that undermines the legitimate exercise of public authority and undermines the function of the State, and thus, it is necessary to strictize it, and the Defendant has a record of punishment several times for the same crime in the past.

However, considering the fact that the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake, and the police officer D wanted to be punished against the Defendant, etc., the circumstances favorable to the Defendant are considered as being favorable to the Defendant. In addition, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) there is no special circumstance or circumstance that may be newly considered in the sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment; (b) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the offense, means and method of the offense; and (c) the circumstances after the crime was committed, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion 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.