2. The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties needs to be punished strictly as it disturbs public order by nullifying legitimate exercise of public authority.

The crime of this case is committed to police officers who had been under legitimate execution of duties by the defendant, and there are no circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the crime, even though they were notified several times from police officers that "I will have come home while handling the current 112 Report Case."

Furthermore, the defendant has been subject to criminal punishment four times of violence, and one time of obstruction of performance of official duties.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant recognizes the crime and repents the wrongness in depth.

In addition, the past records of criminal punishment as above are ten years or more, and there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine.

In addition, the degree of assault committed by the defendant at the time of the instant case cannot be seen as serious.

Such circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, environment, family relations, health status, social ties, methods and results of the crime, and various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable limit of discretion.

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