The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the substance of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, and one hundred and sixty hours of social service) is deemed to be too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the accused committed the instant crime even though he/she had the history of punishment several times for violent crimes, and again commits the instant crime; in light of the Act on the Acceptance of Criminal Crimes, the nature of the crime is inferior; and the need for strict punishment for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties in order to eradicate the light of public authority, it is necessary to punish the accused strictly.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances leading to the instant crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable, considering the following: (a) the Defendant is currently against the present and wrong; (b) compensation for the repair cost of damaged public goods; and (c) there is no record of more severe punishment than a fine.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.