2. The crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is an unfavorable circumstance against the Defendant, in light of the following: (a) there is a need to strictly punish a person by nullifying a legitimate exercise of public authority to disrupt public order; and (b) in light of the tool, method, etc. of the instant crime, the liability for the crime is not easy.

However, the fact that the defendant paid the repair cost of a vehicle due to damage to public goods, and deposited one million won with the damaged police officer as the principal, and the defendant received the mental treatment due to a polar disorder, etc., which seems to have a certain degree of influence on the crime, and there is no record of punishment exceeding the same criminal record or fine, and that the defendant's parents and the branch are leading the defendant, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, taking into account the Defendant’s age, career, sex, environment, family relationship, social relationship, motive and background of a crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., as well as the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unfair.

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da364466, Apr. 2, 200). However, in a case where the act of assault and intimidation was committed against multiple public officials performing the same official duties, the crime of obstructing multiple official duties is established according to the number of public officials performing official duties, and the above act of assault and intimidation was committed in the same place at the same time, and it is evaluated as one act under the social concept