2. Determination

A. The defendants led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects on the fact that the defendants agreed with the victim of the crime of obstruction of business and the crime of destruction of property, Defendant C paid 60,000 won to police officers L and agreed in the trial, Defendant A did not have any record of punishment exceeding a fine, and Defendant C did not have any record of punishment for the same crime.

B. However, in full view of various circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., where the Defendants’ nature of the crime is not weak, such as the Defendants’ disturbance or destruction of the house at the main point, and assaulting police officers dispatched, and the obstruction of the performance of official duties requires strict punishment as a crime detrimental to the State’s function by nullifying a legitimate exercise of public authority, and there is no special change in circumstances that may be considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment (the payment of KRW 600,00 to police officers by Defendant C is not limited to the burden of liability for civil action brought by the victim) and other circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant argument, even if considering favorable circumstances that are favorable to the Defendants, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.