2. The lower court determined that the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol, under the favorable circumstances, under which the Defendant committed the instant crime while making a confession, and the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime, and that the degree of damage therefrom was not much serious, the Defendant had been punished for several violent crimes, and that the Defendant was subject to strict punishment for the crime obstructing the performance of official duties in order to establish the state’s legal order and eradicate the state’s light of public power, taking into account the unfavorable circumstances, and determined the sentence by taking into account various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

The reason for the improper sentencing of the prosecutor (the need for strict punishment of a person interfering with the performance of official duties, the poor quality of the crime, the criminal records of the defendant, and the risk of recidivism) seems to have been sufficiently considered in determining the punishment of the defendant, and the above changes in the sentencing conditions have already been made.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the 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.