The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (limited to eight months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, three years of probation, 80 hours of social service, and 40 hours of alcohol treatment) is too unfased and unreasonable;

2. In full view of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines (a period of six months or more), the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant cannot be deemed unfair, as it is too unreasonable, considering the following factors: (i) the Defendant’s desire to take care of and interfere with his/her duties; (ii) the nature of the crime was not good; (iii) the Defendant again committed the crime of this case even though there was a history of criminal punishment by multiple violence crimes; and (iv) the Defendant’s crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is against the Defendant; and (iv) the victim of the crime of obstruction of business and the police officers desire to commit the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

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.