2. In light of the fact that the Defendants committed the crime of interference with the duties, and the Defendants damaged the house of the place and expressed a bath to the customers on other tables, the crime is inferior, and in the case of Defendant B, the Defendants clearly perceived that they were a police officer in the course of performing their duties while wearing a uniform, but they committed violence against the Defendants, and the liability for the crime is not weak, and the fact that they did not agree with the victimized police officer is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) all the Defendants recognized their mistakes and reflects; (b) no particular criminal history is confirmed; (c) the injured party did not want the punishment of the Defendants by agreement with the victim interfering with his duties; and (d) Defendant B did not have much emphasis on the degree of assault against the police officer; and (c) other factors of sentencing indicated in the records of this case, such as the Defendants’ age, sex, family environment, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unfair, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

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.