2. The crime of this case is deemed to have been committed by Defendant A as a drinking-price issue, and thus, the Defendants were able to take a bath at their main points and interfere with the duties of the above main points, and the police officers, who continued to be called upon Defendant B upon Defendant B’s report, desire to arrest him as an offender in the act of interference with their duties, etc., and interfered with legitimate execution of duties by taking the police officer’s chest into custody with his hand, and the nature of the crime is serious, and the victims have agreed to the crime of this case or failed to have been taken out from the victims. Meanwhile, the Defendants were deemed to have led to both of the crimes of this case, and they were deemed to have led to the fall short of the drinking-price problem under the influence of alcohol at the time, and they were deemed to have become the main employees and vision at the time of the crime of this case, and the police officers, who reported to the police, did not seem to have been able to have been able to have been able to commit the crime of this case, and thus, the Defendants’s age and conditions of obstruction of performance of duties.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.