2. The crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, where the defendant was making a 112 report while he was fright at a convenience store and was dispatched, thereby obstructing a police officer’s legitimate performance of duties by keeping the chest part of the chest part of the police officer in good faith. The defendant has already been subject to criminal punishment (one time a punishment and five times a fine) on six occasions due to robbery, injury, etc., and the defendant has already been subject to criminal punishment (one time a punishment and five times a fine). In order to establish the state’s legal order and eradicate the danger of the public authority, it is necessary to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

On the other hand, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected the mistake in depth, there was no record of criminal punishment for the same crime before, the degree of assault against the victimized police officers seems relatively minor, and the Defendant, such as the victimized police officers, deposited KRW 300,000 to H of the police officers called together in addition to G of the victimized police officers.

The fact that a total of KRW 80,000 is deposited for the purpose is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and other factors of sentencing, including the background of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, etc., as seen above, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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.