2. The crime of interference with the execution of official duties of this case is acknowledged that the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties by assaulting a police officer who performed official duties, and there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant in light of the recent situation of public authority, and that the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim of the assault.

However, considering all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too uneasy and unreasonable, if it is considered that there is no history of punishment heavier than a fine, and there is no history of punishment for the same kind of crime.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. However, since it is apparent that the phrase “influence of force” under Article 364(2)6 of the Criminal Procedure Act was added by mistake among the judgment of the court below, it is corrected to delete it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the