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. In order to resolve the clibity of judgment with legitimate public authority and establish the legal order, there is a need to impose a serious penalty on the crime obstructing the performance of official duties, such as this case, and there is a disadvantage to the Defendant, who has been subject to criminal punishment several times due to past violent crimes.

However, under the influence of alcohol, the defendant is not capable of memory;

In addition to the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant appears to reflect the instant crime, the degree of violence used by the victim C, police officer E, and F is relatively excessive, the police officer expressed that the Defendant does not want to be punished against the Defendant at the lower court, and that the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment for a crime interfering with the performance of official duties, and that there was no record of criminal punishment other than fines for other crimes, the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, family relationship, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

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 by the court below (Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure; however, according to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, “Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act” shall be amended as “Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act,” and “the choice of each fine” shall be deleted; thereafter, “1. Articles 40, 50 of the Criminal Act” and “the selection of each fine for the selection of punishment on the grounds that each of them is added,” respectively.