A. The lower court’s punishment (an amount of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant is acknowledged that the crime is not good, such as inflicting an injury on the police officers who called out after receiving a report while driving a motor vehicle on the road under the influence of alcohol and continuing to insult the police officers, etc., and that the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties requires strict punishment as an offense detrimental to the national function by nullifying a legitimate exercise of public authority.

On the other hand, however, there is a possibility that the defendant is a primary offender, and all of the crimes in this case are recognized, and there is a somewhat contingent crime under the influence of alcohol.

In full view of other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, motive, background, means, method, and consequence of the commission of the crime, relationship of criminal records, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to be adequate, and it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too excessive or too excessive and unfair.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the above unfair sentencing arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that each appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.