The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Sentencing sentencing on the gist of the grounds for appeal (the sentence of the lower court: a fine of five million won);

2. Determination

A. In a case where 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, it is reasonable to respect it.

B. The lower court also held that the Defendant interfered with the business of a good ordinary person by avoiding disturbance in the Moel with the Defendant’s breath of alcohol.

112 A police officer who was dispatched after receiving a report to assault and interfere with legitimate performance of official duties, which is not good in light of the course of the crime and the method of the crime, etc., and the defendant has been punished once each due to the crime of damaging public goods in the past and the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, under the unfavorable circumstances such as the fact that there was a force of punishment once every time due to the crime of damaging public goods in the past, the defendant is in profoundly against his mistake, the fact that the defendant seems to have committed a contingent crime by losing his power, and the degree of

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see the victim of the crime of interference with business affairs, the victim did not want the punishment of the defendant, the victim was sentenced to a fine in full for about ten years prior to the previous ten years, and the victim did not have any criminal records prior to the suspension of execution or more. In addition, the punishment was determined by taking into account the following factors: the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case.

(c)

The grounds for unfair sentencing (the seriousness of the case, the nature of the crime, etc.) alleged by the prosecutor are shown to have been sufficiently considered in determining the sentence against the defendant by the court below, and the above conditions of sentencing changed otherwise.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The Criminal Procedure Act provides that the appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is groundless.