The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (3 million won in penalty) declared by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

2. The crime of this case is acknowledged that the police officer, upon receiving a report, required the presentation of identification cards to the defendant, and the exercise of her bath and physical power, and that the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, such as this case, needs to be punished for the purpose of establishing the legal order of the State and eradicating the light of public authority.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) the primary offender; (c) the Defendant was the first offender; and (d) the degree of the type of the Defendant’s use by the victimized police officer is relatively excessive; and and (c) other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (d) the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower

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 appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.