A. According to the consistent statement, etc. by the police officers of the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, even though it was recognized that Defendant B interfered with the police officers’ performance of official duties in collaboration with Defendant B.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced the Defendants (Defendant A: fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for six months, probation period of two years, community service hours of 80 hours) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize that Defendant B interfered with the police officer’s performance of official duties, jointly with Defendant A, and that it was sufficiently proven to the extent that there was no reasonable doubt.

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's determination of not guilty of this part of the facts charged against Defendant B on the grounds as stated in its holding is just and acceptable, and since there was no new evidence submitted in the trial, there was an error of law by misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. In full view of the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of the instant case’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, the lower court appears to have been reasonably determined by fully considering all the circumstances, including the various reasons for sentencing alleged by the prosecutor, and no special circumstance exists to the extent that the sentence of the lower court is to be changed.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.