A. The sentence of Defendant 1 (three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the court below (one year of probation, one year of probation, and 80 hours of community service in six months of imprisonment) by each prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the confession of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties when the defendant made a confession of the crime of obstruction of official duties and the fact that the defendant made an agreement with the victim of obstruction of official duties, and the transfer of KRW 500,000 to the police officers who suffered damage to the obstruction of official duties, etc., and several times including the records of punishment for the crime of obstruction of official duties, the crime of obstruction of official duties is committed without being familiar with the defendant during the period of suspension of execution, the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, such as the motive and circumstance leading up to the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior after the crime, and environment, it cannot be deemed that the first instance court's sentence against the defendant is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, the defendant and the prosecutor's aforementioned assertion are all without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the appeal against each prosecutor's judgment of the court below are without merit. Thus, all of the appeals are dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per