The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment (two years of suspended sentence for eight months of imprisonment, and eight hours of community service order) is deemed too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. The determination of the obstruction of performance of official duties requires strict punishment since the act is light and impairing the legitimate public authority. The fact that the Defendant was sentenced to one-year imprisonment due to the special crime of obstruction of official duties in 2007 is the reason for sentencing disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes; (b) agreed with the victim D regarding the crime of interference with business affairs; and (c) other circumstances, such as the motive, background, means, and consequence of the instant crime; and (d) the conditions for sentencing specified in the records and arguments, including the circumstances after the instant crime; and (c) the outcome of the application of sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Commission, the sentence

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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.

[1] In accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, “Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act” of the judgment of the court below shall be construed as “Article 314(1), Article 313, and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act” as “Article 314(1), Article 314(1), Article 136(1), and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act” as “Article 314(1), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act shall be construed as “Article 62(1), the main sentence of Article 62(2), Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act,” respectively.