The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (2.5 million won in penalty) declared by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

2. It is recognized that the Defendant has been punished five times by a fine for the same kind of violent crime, and that there has been five times a fine for the same offense, and that the obstruction of the performance of official duties and the crime of injury in this case constitute assaulting a police officer who performed official duties, thereby obstructing the performance of official duties and causing an injury at the same time, and that there is a need for a strict punishment in consideration of the recent state of public authority.

However, considering the fact that the Defendant made a confession of all the crimes and divided his mistake, the fact that there was no record of crime after being sentenced to a fine of KRW 300,000 for the violation of the Road Act in 197, the agreement with the victim C, the fact that the damaged police officer deposited KRW 500,000 for the victim C, the fact that the injury was not serious, the fact that the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case by contingency, and other sentencing conditions specified in the argument of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unfair.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the “Article 313” of the pertinent provision on the crime subject to the law among the judgment below is added by mistake. Since it is apparent that the “Article 70 of the Criminal Act” of the detention clause in the workhouse is omitted by mistake, it is apparent that the “Article 70 of the Criminal Act” was deleted and added ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on the Criminal Procedure.