2. The crime of obstructing the performance of official duties on the market is not only impeding the function of the state’s legal order by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, but also is also related to the safety of the general public, so it is in need of strict punishment corresponding thereto. However, even though the defendant had been subject to a fine twice due to drinking driving, he was in the situation where he would be subject to crackdown while drinking and driving, and thus, he would be subject to crackdown, who is the control police officer, and thus, he would be removed by asking the arms of the victim, which is the control police officer, and thus

However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected the crime, the fact that the Defendant agreed smoothly with the victim, the fact that the Defendant was a family member to support the Defendant, the fact that the Defendant appears to have a good health condition, and the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, circumstances before and after the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unfeasible and unfair.

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