The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of suspended execution, and 40 hours of community service order) of the lower court against the Defendant is deemed unreasonable.

2. The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties needs to be strictly punished as a crime prejudicial to the State’s function by nullifying a legitimate exercise of public authority. This case is a situation unfavorable to the Defendant, where the Defendant interferes with the business of the victim G, assaults the police officer E dispatched after receiving a report on the above facts, and thereby obstructing the legitimate performance of duties. The Defendant did not agree with the victim of the crime of obstruction of official duties of this case.

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant appears to have led to the confession of the instant crime and reflect his mistake in depth; (b) the Defendant did not have any specific criminal power except for the Defendant who was sentenced to a fine as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (i.e., the violation of the Road Traffic Act) around 2009; (c) the Defendant agreed with the police officer E, the other party to the instant crime of obstruction of performance of official duties; (d) the social ties of the Defendant appears clear; and (e) other various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, character, character, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Commission, the lower court’s suspended execution of imprisonment for the Defendant on condition of community service work, and thus, is deemed unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.