All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor (eight months) of the lower court is deemed unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination: ① The Defendant had the power to be punished twice due to drunk driving and one time due to the crime of interference with business; the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties requires strict punishment in order to protect the legal order and establish public authority; the Defendant committed the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, such as assaulting the police officer in the course of being prosecuted for the crime of indecent act by compulsion; there is not good quality of the crime, such as assaulting the police officer under the influence of alcohol concentration 0.134%; even if the Defendant is a new citizen, even if he was under the investigation and trial of the preceding case, he would have become aware of the Korean judicial system; in light of the fact that the Defendant continued to commit the crime without drinking and even though he was under the influence of the Korean legal order and judicial system, it is an unfavorable circumstance that it is necessary to constrainate the legal order of the Republic of Korea.

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) there is no record of punishment exceeding a fine; and (c) the victim expressed his intent not to have the Defendant punished in the trial; and (c) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing, such as the background, means, results, and the circumstances after the instant crime, the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed to be excessively weak or unreasonable.

3. Wherefore, the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant is without merit. Thus, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the lower court’s “application of statutes” did not state “1. Discretionary mitigation and Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act.”