2. The lower court rendered a sentence by taking account of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the person was recidivism during the period of probation, five times the previous convictions related to violence, and two times the previous convictions related to fisheries, and the fact that it appears that the person did not faithfully comply with the protective observation given earlier, the lower court determined a sentence by taking into account the following: (a) the confession of the crime; and (b) the fact that the police officer who suffered damage to the obstruction of the performance of official duties did not want the

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

The reason for the prosecutor's appeal (the fact that the defendant committed a second offense during the period of suspension of execution due to a violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act, a second offense even after being punished due to illegal operations several times, which is highly likely to repeat in the future, and that there is a need to strictly punish the crime of interference with the execution of official duties in order to establish the legal order) seems to have already been considered in the original trial, and the sentencing conditions

It is difficult to see it.

In addition, in light of the sentencing conditions set forth in the court below, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unhutiled.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above 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.