2. In light of the fact that: (a) the Defendants were unable to perform official duties by exercising violence against police officers dispatched to their own disturbance; (b) the State’s legal order and order are established; and (c) there is a need to strictly punish the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties in order to eradicate a light of public authority; and (d) Defendant B was punished by a fine for the same kind of crime in around 2001. In light of the fact that there was a history of punishment for the same crime, the Defendants’ liability for the

However, in light of the fact that the Defendants recognized all of the instant crimes, and reflects the fact that all of the Defendants did not have any criminal record of suspended execution or more, and that Defendant A did not have any record of being punished for the same kind of crime, etc., taking into account the favorable circumstances, and taking into account other factors of sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, etc., the respective sentences of the lower court are too unreasonable, and thus,

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, pursuant to Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the “Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000” in the first sentence of the judgment of the court below shall be corrected to “Defendant A” by a fine of KRW 3,00,000.