2. The following facts are acknowledged: (a) the Defendant was punished by a fine on several occasions due to a crime related to violence, etc.; and (b) the Defendant was arrested and investigated as an offender in the act of obstruction of performance of official duties on April 22, 2013 as of April 22, 2013; and (c) the Defendant was released following the following release: (a) the nature of the crime is not good, such as repeated committing a crime of obstruction of official duties on May 2, 2013; and (b) the crime of obstruction of official duties is recognized as a crime that undermines the legitimate exercise of public authority, and thus, requires a strict punishment.

However, comprehensively examining all of the sentencing conditions of the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, character, character, intelligence and environment, motive, background, means, method and consequence of the Defendant’s crime, criminal record, circumstance before and after the crime, etc., the Defendant’s sentence imposed by the lower court is too unjustifiable and unreasonable. Thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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.