2. The crime of this case is a case involving the Defendant’s destruction of property while under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant’s taking action upon receiving a report on the Defendant’s taking action, and the assault was committed against the victimized police officer, and the nature of the crime is not good. In order to establish the state’s legal order and eradicate the light of public authority, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, such as this case, need to be punished strictly.

However, it is advantageous to the following: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime in a state of drunk influence; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency; (c) the Defendant did not focus on the damage of the Defendant’s property or interference with the performance of official duties; (d) the Defendant did not have any criminal records of the same kind; (c) the Defendant has no criminal records exceeding the fine; (d) has given compensation for damage to the victims of property damage C; and (e)

In light of the above circumstances, including equity in sentencing with the same and similar cases as above, and all other sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and background leading up to the crime of this case, means and consequence of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime of this case, etc., the court below's punishment imposed by the court below cannot be deemed unfair, and thus, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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 prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.