2. According to the judgment, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, destroyed television dose, obstructed legitimate performance of official duties by exercising force against police officers dispatched after receiving a report of domestic violence, and thereby obstructing the performance of official duties by exercising force against police officers, and during that process, causing injury to the victimized police officers, etc., and the Defendant’s treatment of domestic violence was taken place on or around September 2013, despite the fact that the Defendant, who was his spouse F, was subject to domestic violence treatment, the crime was destroyed as part of domestic violence, and the liability for the crime was not easy, and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is an offense detrimental to the State’s function by nullifying a legitimate exercise of public authority. In particular, the Defendant, who was a public official, has a high possibility of criticism against the police officers’ performance of official duties, are the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant generally recognized his mistake and agreed with the victim F, and the victim police officers, including the above victim, appeal against the defendant's wife, there is no criminal history subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment or more, and the degree of injury of the victim police officers is relatively minor, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, considering the motive, means and result of the crime, various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, the defendant's age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and health status, it is deemed reasonable to ensure that the defendant has an opportunity to reflect at the time of the imposition of fines only once. Thus, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed unfair because it is too uneasible.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.