A. The Defendants: (a) gathered the victim as if they were smoked in a restaurant by Defendant A; and (b) resisted the victim’s resistance; and (c) did not jointly interfere with the Defendants’ desire or disturbance by having the victim smoked in a restaurant.

B. The police officers called up concluded that the Defendants did not resist the horses of the Defendants, and that the Defendants were wrong, and there was no desire for the police officers to urge the fair investigation by resisting such correspondence investigation.

(c)

The sentence of the lower court (each fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although CCTV images installed in the instant restaurant did not have been submitted to the investigative agency to determine the assertion of mistake of facts, in full view of the statements by the victims and the witness at the scene, the Defendants were unable to have avoided disturbance while 20 to 30 minutes in the restaurant as stated in the facts charged, and the police officers were able to have expressed a great voice. It is difficult to view that the Defendants’ employees or the police officers were merely merely a few mads.

The Defendants’ assertion of factual mistake is rejected.

B. In light of the Defendants’ speech and behavior and the degree of damage resulting therefrom, the details of the Defendants’ desire to perform official duties, the Defendants’ attitude as to the commission of the crime, and other circumstances regarding the sentencing as indicated in the instant case, including the Defendants’ age, occupation, environment, and power, the lower court’s sentencing as to the Defendants cannot be deemed to be unfair merely because it is excessively unreasonable.

There is no reason to believe the defendants' unfair argument of sentencing.

3. The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that all of the appeals by the Defendants are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.