The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s sentence (3 million won in penalty, 1.0 million won in penalty, and 2.0 million won in penalty) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Although the State’s legal order and order are established to eradicate public peace, there is a need to strictly punish an act interfering with the performance of official duties in order to eradicate public peace, it is deemed that the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime, and the degree of physical power exercised by the Defendant is relatively relatively minor, and the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant crime. In full view of all the records and all of the elements of sentencing indicated in the instant trial process, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, method and method after the instant crime, etc., the lower court did not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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 (Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is clear that the " Jeju" at the end of one criminal fact of the judgment below is a clerical error, and it is corrected to delete it ex officio in accordance with