2. The crime of this case is committed on the ground that the defendant was not surved with the proprietor of the telecom and the telecom, and was called out after receiving a report thereon. In light of the circumstances leading up to the crime and the attitude of the act, etc., which interfere with the performance of official duties by committing violence, the liability for the crime is not somewhat weak. In order to establish the state legal order and eradicate the public power, there is a need to punish the act that interferes with the performance of official duties. However, the defendant is disadvantageous to the defendant, but it is against the defendant's confession of his crime, and the degree of the type of crime committed by the defendant committed by the contingent and the degree of the exercise of official duties is not excessive. In full view of the various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, family relationship, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below is not deemed unfair because it is too unfford.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.