A. The lower court’s punishment (fine 5,000,000) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (fines 5,000,000) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. A favorable circumstance is that the Defendant’s mistake is divided and reflected by himself, the victims E and D do not want punishment against the Defendant, the appellate court agreed with H, the police officer who suffered the obstruction of performance of official duties, and the fact that the Defendant has lived faithfully without the power of crime so far.

However, among the crimes of this case, the obstruction of performance of official duties is deemed to have been committed by a police officer who takes a bath to a legitimate performance of official duties, and thus, it is necessary for the defendant to stimulate and infringe upon legitimate public authority, and thus, it seems that the court below has already taken into account these circumstances. Although the court below agreed with a victimized police officer after the decision of the court below, it is difficult to deem that the situation to reduce the punishment of the court below is changed to the extent that the punishment of the court below was mitigated. In full view of all the sentencing conditions of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, the background and result of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, the defendant

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.