A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (unfair sentencing) (two years of suspended execution, observation of protection, and community service order of 120 hours for ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant recognizes all of the instant crimes, and reflects his mistake, and was detained for four months as to the instant crimes, and the crime of interference with the performance of official duties is deemed to have been committed by the Defendant, and the actual benefit gained by the Defendant from the crime of violating the Trademark Act seems to be not much high, and the fact that there is a family member to support without good health conditions is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant has already been subject to criminal punishment more than 20 times, and has been subject to criminal punishment several times including violent crimes (including interference with the execution of official duties). In particular, in order to establish the state's legal order and eradicate the situation of the public authority, the crime of interference with the performance of official duties needs to be strictly punished, and the fact that no agreement has been reached with the victims up to the depth of the party is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, means and methods of crime, results, etc., all the sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings, and equity in sentencing with similar cases, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too minor or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Provided, That the burden of litigation costs shall be governed by the proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.