The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (4 million won in penalty) that the court below rendered by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

2. The crime of damage to property of this case is deemed to have been destroyed by the Defendant’s taking aboard a taxi in which the victim is driving, due to the bad nature of the crime, and the crime of interference with the performance of official duties of this case is deemed to interfere with the performance of official duties by assaulting police officers who perform official duties, and thus, requires strict punishment in light of the recent situation of public authority.

However, taking into account the fact that the Defendant is breaking his mistake in depth, there is no history of punishment heavier than a fine, and there is no history of punishment for the same crime, and the fact that the Defendant appears to have committed each of the crimes of this case by contingently, the fact that he agreed with the victim of property damage, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the commission of 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. In conclusion, 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 136 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the criminal facts for which the law is applicable). However, since it is obvious that the judgment of the court below, "Article 136 of the Criminal Act" was omitted by this error, it is corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.