The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a year, two years of probation, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is deemed to be too uneasy and unreasonable in light of the main sentence of the grounds for appeal.

2. The instant crime of this case, based on the grounds of appeal, obstructs the Defendant’s business by destroying the cafeteria of the victim D, etc., and assaulting the police officers in the process of performing official duties after receiving a report from the Defendant, who were arrested as an offender in the act of violence and intimidation, and continued to interfere with the performance of official duties by assaulting and threatening police officers who were arrested as an offender in the act of committing an act of violence, threat, etc.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant did not have any history of punishment for the same crime; and (b) the Defendant did not have any history of crime after being sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000 for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act in 2001; (c) the Defendant was aware of all each of the instant crimes, and was in depth and reflected at the time; and (d) the Defendant appears to have committed each of the instant crimes in a contingent situation while at the time, with the victim D, with respect to the obstruction of the instant business and the crime of damage to property, the said victim was under agreement with the victim D, and the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, home environment, each of the instant crimes, the circumstances following the instant crimes, etc., and the various circumstances, etc., which are the conditions for the sentencing as indicated in the theory of punishment

shall not be deemed to exist.

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.