The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (4 million won in penalty) against the Defendant as to the summary of the grounds for appeal is deemed unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case committed at the time of the Defendant’s vehicle’s breathing of alcohol on the packaging and obstructing the performance of official duties and causing injury at the same time. In light of the content and circumstances of the crime, the criminal liability is not less complicated.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the fact that the Defendant was guilty of, and reflects on, an contingent crime committed while under the influence of alcohol; (b) the degree of injury is not much serious; (c) the Defendant has no record of being punished for obstructing the performance of official duties; and (d) other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed as unfair because the sentence imposed by the Defendant

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, pursuant to Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, “Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act” as “Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act” is amended as “Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (a) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (a point of injury)” in the column for “Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime of 1.0” among the application of the judgment of the court below pursuant to Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, and is corrected to add “1.0 ordinary concurrence” and “Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (a punishment imposed on a more severe injury).”