2. Determination

A. The fact that Defendant A committed the instant crime even during the period of suspension of execution due to the same kind of crime, multiple criminal records exist, and the fact that Defendant A had already been punished by a fine during the period of suspension of execution, etc. is disadvantageous to sentencing.

However, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized the commission of a crime; (b) the damage caused by the instant crime is relatively less light; (c) the victim and his family members agreed to provide support; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (c) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unreasonable because it is too unaffortuous.

B. Defendant B’s part of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties does not constitute a crime by exercising the direct force against a police officer, and it is necessary to do so because the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is serious because the Defendant’s direct force against a police officer violates legitimate public authority.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized the Defendant as committing a crime; (b) there are two previous convictions of fines; (c) the content and degree of damage caused by the use of force as contingent crimes; and (d) other factors of sentencing, such as the background of the instant crime; (b) the means and methods of the crime; and (c) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.