2. The crime of this case is acknowledged that Defendant A interfered with the duty to wear a plaque at the victim D restaurant; Defendant B interfered with the performance of official duties by carrying out police officers dispatched by Defendant B to the above case; Defendant A is not good in light of the details and methods of the crime; Defendant A had a record of criminal punishment for a crime of the same kind or violence.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants led to the confession of the crime and the mistake against the victim; (b) Defendant A agreed with the victim D; (c) Defendant B deposited KRW 500,00 for the victim police officers; and (d) Defendant B’s initial crime and the economic situation and health conditions are not good; and (c) the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct; (d) motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.