2. The judgment below rendered a sentence by taking account of various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’s criminal history, age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., in consideration of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant committed a crime of this case in depth and reflects the Defendant’s mistake; (b) the Defendant has no other special criminal history, other than twice a fine; (c) the obstruction of the performance of official duties not only impede the exercise of legitimate public power; and (d) the obstruction of the performance of official duties not only undermines the function of the State’s legal order, such as nullifying the exercise of legitimate public power; and (d) there is a need for strict punishment corresponding thereto; and (e) the Defendant has been unable to agree with the victims of the crime of injury or special intimidation until now.

The grounds for unfair sentencing (the necessity of strict punishment, poor quality of crimes, and no agreed effort) alleged by the prosecutor are shown to have been sufficiently taken into account in determining the punishment against the defendant by the court below, and the above sentencing conditions have changed differently.

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.