2. The crime of this case was committed on the street by an emergency medical service worker who was sent to the Defendant after receiving a report from 112 on the part of the Defendant, who was under the influence of drinking alcohol on the road, but failed to take place due to the failure to take it back to the hospital, following the 119 emergency medical service workers, the police officers asked the Defendant at his domicile for drinking and drinking him, while taking a bath for him, and taking a bath to him, they cannot be seen to obstruct the police officers' legitimate execution of their duties by assaulting him in light of the circumstances and contents of the crime, etc. However, the court below committed the crime of this case at a disadvantage in light of the following circumstances: if the Defendant led to the crime of this case at issue and was under criminal punishment twice for the same crime of this case, and it appears that he was under the influence of the Defendant's living conditions before and after the confession of the crime of this case, and that he did not seem to have been under the influence of the sentence of 10 days before and after oral pleadings, it appears that he did not have any undue influence the Defendant's age.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, in the summary of the evidence of the court below, it is clear that the "police statement statement to F" is a clerical error in the "police statement to E", and thus, it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.