Defendant

A 1,000,000 won, Defendant B 2 200,000 won, respectively.

A. There was no misunderstanding of facts that Defendant A did not interfere with the performance of official duties, such as inflicting an injury on the victim E, or blicking with the police officer H.

Defendant

B There was no assault by victims.

The judgment of the court below that found all of the charges of this case guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of 2 million won, Defendant B: a fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the trial court of the case, the following facts or circumstances are acknowledged. ① The victim E, at the police and the court of the trial court, consistently stated that “The victim et al., al., went back to the defendant by demanding that the defendant calculates the drinking value from the middle stairs to the first floor without paying the drinking value, she sat down from the defendant A at the entrance of the first floor, she satts, and thereby, she was under treatment at the hospital by flatizing the part, and she was under treatment.” ② The victim E was just in the first top part of the part requiring medical treatment from X for about 14 days, and the open top part of the part requiring medical treatment [the 10th part of the investigation record] of the victim’s satise and tension [the 110th part of the victim’s statement and the remaining part of the evidence at the time of the victim’s eatum, the victim’s eatum was not under dispute.