The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following: (a) there is a need to impose a punishment corresponding to the nature of the offense against obstruction of performance of official duties; (b) the police officer dispatched for the offense committed by the Defendant inflicted an injury on the goods kept in the 119 ambulances by the Defendant; and (c) there is no injury or injury on the Defendant; and (d) the punishment of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unfeasible and so it cannot be deemed that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.