The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court acquitted the Defendant under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the victim expressed his/her intent not to have the Defendant punished after the instant indictment, among the facts charged in the instant case, on the ground that the public prosecution was dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and that there was no proof of crime regarding fraud.

Since only the prosecutor has filed an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing only for the conviction portion, the dismissal of the prosecution and the acquittal portion are separate and finalized, and the scope of the trial by this court shall be limited to the conviction portion of the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the penalty (five million won of a fine) declared by the court below against the defendant is too unhued.

3. When the Defendant paid the drinking value at the main point, the crime of this case was committed against the Defendant, such as: (a) damage to the three spons of the above main points on the date of the trial cost; (b) interference with the performance of official duties by the police officers on the sponsor of the police officers dispatched after receiving the report; and (c) the quality of the crime is not good; and (d) there is a need to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties as impeding the exercise of legitimate public authority and impairing the State’s function. In particular, the Defendant committed the crime of this case, even though he had had the record of being punished once on the same kind of crime (three million won).

However, all of the crimes of this case are recognized by the defendant, and they reflect their depth, the amount of damage caused by the damage of property is relatively small and the degree of tangible force exercised in the obstruction of performance of official duties is not severe, and the defendant deposited KRW 500,000 for the main owner and the damaged police officer, although the defendant had the same criminal record, there is no criminal record except the above previous criminal record.