B All appeals against the Defendants by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The sentence of the lower court against Defendant B (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants by the prosecutor (as to the Defendants, Defendant A: fine of KRW 7 million; imprisonment of KRW 1 year and 6 months; imprisonment of KRW 1 year and 1 year and 10 months; and Defendant D: imprisonment of KRW 10 months; 2 years of suspended execution of imprisonment of August) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the grounds for appeal against the Defendant A by the public prosecutor, the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime is disadvantageous to the Defendant, even though the period of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment.

However, in light of the following: (a) the instant crime was contingent; (b) the degree of the instant crime was not excessive; (c) the Defendant did not recognize the error and reflects the Defendant; (d) the Defendant agreed with the victim of the obstruction of duties; and (e) deposited KRW 1 million for the public official subject to the obstruction of performing official duties; (c) there is no special circumstance or circumstance newly considered in sentencing after the lower judgment was rendered; and (d) other various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the motive and background leading up to the instant crime; (d) details of the relevant crime; (e) the circumstances after the crime was committed; (e) the circumstances after the crime was committed; (e) the Defendant’s age; and (e) the Defendant’s sexual behavior; and (e) the circumstances

B. The grounds for appeal by Defendant B and the reasons for appeal by the Prosecutor against Defendant B are also examined.

The number of the crimes of this case, which committed a crime of this case without a large number of times, and committed a crime of this case with a high frequency, is not good to the number and quality of the crimes of this case, and the defendant committed a crime of this case without any reflection of the past record of criminal punishment several times including that of the same crime. The crime of obstructing the performance of official duties constitutes a repeated crime against the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant's mistake is recognized.