The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the lower court’s punishment (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment, two years of probation, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) against the Defendant is too unhued.

2. The fact that the nature of the instant crime is not good is that the Defendant is disadvantageous to the Defendant, or that the Defendant is against the Defendant’s confession while committing the instant crime, that the Defendant deposited KRW 500,000 in order to recover damage to H, the victim of the instant crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and that the Defendant accepted at his own expense the damaged part in the park toilet as stated in Article 2016-Ma321(1) of the judgment of the lower court, and that the public telephone as stated in Article 2-2(b) of the 2016-Ma321 of the judgment of the lower court appears not to be severe to the extent of damage. In full view of the various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s excessive sentence against the Defendant is unreasonable, and the prosecutor’

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.

(However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the application of the judgment of the court below ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) shall be amended as "each Article 366 of the Criminal Act" in the second sentence.