2. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant not only inhaled marijuana several times, but also caused disturbance for revocation of the State, and thus obstructing the execution of duties by assaulting the victimized police officers dispatched after receiving a report, and the nature of the crime and the circumstances are considerably poor.

However, considering the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, drug crimes were limited to a simple medication, smoking marijuana purchased with a doctor's prescription for the purpose of treatment in Canada, which is the place of nationality, and the fact that the victimized police officer does not want punishment against the defendant under the agreement with the victimized police officer for the crime obstructing the performance of official duties, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, sex, environment, family relationship, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment cannot be deemed to be unfair because the sentence of this case is too uneasible. Thus, the prosecutor's argument is

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act ex officio under Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, which changes the term “Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act” to “Article 3(3) subparag. 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.”