All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts on the part of the police officer is consistent with Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts, but it is merely an act against the police officer’s threat of excessive suppression, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case without an insulting intent or even if the act constitutes self-defense. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence (a fine of KRW 1.5 million) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendant (1.5 million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. 1) The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant continued to take the same bath as the facts charged in this case, and that the victim took over imprisonment, such as hinginginging the defendant or exercising tangible power, so the above argument by the defendant is without merit, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below, and there is no error of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below. 2) The crime of this case as to the defendant and the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing by the defendant, who was a police officer, received 112 reports to help the defendant return home of the defendant under the influence of alcohol and was called out after receiving 112 reports in order to have the victim return home, and thus, the crime is inferior to the nature of the crime, and the defendant did not agree with the victim. However, the defendant's hinging theory is acknowledged, and the defendant was not subject to punishment at the time of the crime in this case.