The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the first instance court, which sentenced the defendant to a fine, is too unfasible, in light of the nature of each crime as stated in the summary of the grounds for appeal and the records of the punishment for drunk driving of the defendant, should be sentenced to imprisonment, and considering that the suspension of the execution of imprisonment, which the defendant was already sentenced, shall be invalidated, is unreasonable.

2. The crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties, such as the crimes listed in the judgment below, need to be strictly punished as crimes that interfere with the legitimate exercise of public authority, and are likely to be criticized in that each crime in the judgment was committed during the suspension of execution of imprisonment due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act.

As such, the prosecutor's assertion that the sentencing of the first instance court, which sentenced to a fine, is against the disadvantage of the defendant, is reasonable.

However, it is difficult to view that each crime in the judgment has reached a serious degree, and it is difficult to deem that the result of each crime in the judgment has resulted in difficult recovery. ② The defendant expressed his intention of deep reflectivity from the investigation stage to the trial. ③ There is no criminal history for the defendant; ④ there was no criminal history for the defendant; ④ there was no other crime committed within a short period after the decision to suspend the execution of imprisonment became final and conclusive; ⑤ there is a family member to support the defendant; ⑤ there is no other family member to support the defendant; and ④ there is no economic situation that the amount of the fine imposed on the defendant together with the favorable circumstances for the defendant, which is objectively insufficient (the amount equivalent to 60 days of a fine6,00,000 won). In the appellate trial, the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant, as argued by the prosecutor, shall be considered as an exercise of the right of punishment.