The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two years of suspended sentence and fine of 500,000 won for ten months of imprisonment) is too unied and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant interfered with the victim D’s restaurant business by force, and the Defendant committed a crime of disturbance within the government office and interference with the performance of official duties in the state state following the crime of interference with the performance of duties. In order to establish national legal order and eradicate the light of the public authority, it is necessary to strictly punish a crime against public authority, such as interference with the performance of official duties.

In addition, even though the defendant was punished for a crime of the same or similar crime on June 22, 2016, such as punishment for attempted damage to public goods, etc., he/she committed the crime of this case.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and there was an opportunity to reflect on the defendant's living in custody for about two months.

A victim of a crime interfering with business does not want to be punished by the defendant, and there is no record that the defendant has been punished in excess of a fine for the last ten years.

In light of such circumstances, the lower court has determined a sentence by comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the instant pleadings, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime. The lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there are no new data to change the sentencing of the lower court in the trial.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.