2. In light of the above, it is recognized that the Defendant did not agree with the victims until the trial was held, and the Defendant did not peep into the circumstances that the Defendant made efforts to repay the damage, and that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is an offense of impairing the State’s function by nullifying a legitimate exercise of public authority, and thus requires strict punishment.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized each of the instant offenses, thereby infringing the Defendant’s mistake in depth; (b) the Defendant did not have any other criminal records except once a fine is imposed due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “Offences”); and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment; (d) motive, background, method, method, method and consequence of the instant offenses; and (e) comprehensively reviewed all the sentencing conditions of the instant pleadings, such as the criminal defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment; (e) the criminal motive, method, method and consequence;

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