The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months and two years of suspended execution) of the lower court against the Defendant is deemed unreasonable.

2. The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties requires strict punishment as a crime detrimental to the function of the State by nullifying a legitimate exercise of public authority. Thus, the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties in this case is not good because it interferes with legitimate execution of official duties by means of abusiveism, assault, etc. against a police officer dispatched after receiving a report by the defendant.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime and reflects his mistake; (b) the Defendant had no record of being sentenced to a stay of execution or a heavier punishment after around 196; and (c) the Defendant appears to have caused the instant crime by somewhat contingently contingent; and (d) other various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (b) the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, including the circumstances before and after the instant crime, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court Sentencing, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit

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.