Therefore, since the judgment of the court below to dismiss the public prosecution against Defendant A became final and conclusive separately, the part to dismiss the public prosecution is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

Ultimately, among the judgment of the court below against Defendant A, only the guilty part against the above Defendant belongs to the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each punishment sentenced by the court below to the Defendants (the imprisonment of two years, additional collection, Defendant B: the imprisonment of one year and six months, and the imprisonment of six months, and additional collection for the crimes as set forth in the holding, No. 2,8, and 9) are too heavy.

B. Each sentence of the lower court by the Prosecutor is too minor.

3. The victim N, R, and Special Violence AC of the crime of interference with the duties agreed with the defendant A at the first instance of the judgment was again submitted a written application for the correction of the defendant A's prior wife at the first instance of the judgment.

Defendant

B acknowledges the obstruction of the instant business and a special assault that was denied by the lower court.

However, even if all of the above circumstances are examined, the arguments and records of this case are revealed, including favorable circumstances (in the case of Defendant A, most of them agreed with the victim, the victim AD is not subject to the punishment of the defendant in the case of Defendant B, and equity with the case of judgment at the same time with the special intimidation that became final and conclusive in the case of some crimes) and unfavorable circumstances (in the case of Defendant B, multiple kinds of criminal records, the crime committed during the period of repeated crime, the contents and methods of the crime, etc.).