2. There is a need to strictly protect public officials performing their official duties. Each of the crimes of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendants, such as the following: (a) Defendant A interfered with road traffic; and (b) Defendant B interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties by police officers dispatched after receiving a report 112 by the Defendants; and (c) Defendant B has been punished for the same kind of crime.

Meanwhile, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants recognized all of the instant offenses; (b) the Defendants appears to have committed the instant offenses in a somewhat contingent and contingent manner; (c) Defendant A did not have any history of punishment; and (d) Defendant B did not have any history of punishment exceeding the fine; and (c) other various circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, the details and details of the instant offenses; and (d) the circumstances before and after the commission of the offense, the lower court’s punishment against

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal against the Defendants by the prosecutor of the conclusion 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.