2. The lower court, based on favorable circumstances, sentenced the above sentence, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant, due to his/her mistake, gave a serious desire to the police officer dispatched by the Defendant; (b) the nature of the crime is bad; (c) the obstruction of the performance of official duties is being suspended due to the obstruction of execution; and (d) the Defendant’s mistake and reflects; and (e) the Defendant’s failure to repeat a crime is being committed.

Even when taking into account the unfavorable circumstances that the nature of the offense of the Defendant was not somewhat weak, considering the fact that the Defendant appears to consistently make a confession and reflect against the offense from the investigation stage, the lower court’s determination in full view of the favorable circumstances and all of the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading up to the offense, means and consequence, scale of the offense, and circumstances after the offense, cannot be deemed unfair that the lower court’s determination in sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion, or maintaining it as it is, is unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Accordingly, the prosecutor’s allegation above is without merit.

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.