2. The crime of this case was committed on the ground that the police officers dispatched upon receipt of 112 report returned home first to the Defendants and the timely counterpart, and the Defendants jointly committed the injury by using physical force, such as the breath of the police officer’s breath and the quith, etc., and the nature of the crime is not easy.

However, the degree of injury suffered by the victimized police officers is not severe, and the court below already agreed with the above damaged police officers and the damaged police officers and expressed their intent not to punish the Defendants.

In addition, the defendants recognize all of the crimes of this case and repent their errors in depth, and make it hard to avoid committing such crimes again.

In addition, in full view of various sentencing conditions, including the Defendants’ age, sex, family environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the situation before and after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unfeasible and unreasonable even if considering the various circumstances asserted by the prosecutor.

3. The Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, on the ground that the phrase “each former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014)” of the 3th page 1-2 of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in each former Punishment of Violences, etc. (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014).