2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime of obstructing the execution of public duties in this case is an offense detrimental to the State’s function by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, and thus, requires a corresponding punishment to establish national legal order and eradicate the light of public power.

However, the defendant shows an attitude against each of the crimes in this case, and the degree of assault used by the defendant is relatively limited, and there is no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime prior to each of the crimes in this case.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and the trial process, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be unfair because it is too unfeasible.

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