A. The Defendant (unfair sentencing)’s sentence (an amount of eight million won) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant is favorable for the following reasons: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the Defendant’s mistake; (b) the degree of damage was not significant because the police officer did not fit for the Defendant’s handphones with the Defendant; (c) there was no record of criminal punishment for the same crime; and (d) deposit a part of money for the victimized police officer.

On the other hand, in order to establish the law and order of the state and eradicate the danger of public authority, the crime of interference with the execution of official duties, such as this case, requires a corresponding punishment, and the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor due to a crime of this case, even though he was under the suspended sentence.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable.

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.

Provided, That the burden of litigation costs shall be governed by the proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.