2. In order to prevent Defendant A from assaulting the victim and interfering with the victim’s business for a period of 20 minutes, the Defendants need to be strictly punished in light of the following: (a) the nature of each of the crimes of this case, which was damaged to a considerable degree by the police officer, who was called out after receiving a report in combination with Defendant B, was bad; and (b) the damage caused by the assault of this case and the obstruction of business operation was not recovered.

However, the Defendants appears to have the attitude of reflecting each of the crimes in this case by recognizing all of the crimes in this case, and the Defendant A was sentenced to a fine on one occasion, and there is no record of criminal punishment against Defendant B, and the Defendants appears to have committed contingent crimes under the influence of alcohol. In addition, considering the overall sentencing conditions on the records and changes in the records of this case, such as each age, sex, environment, the background of each of the crimes in this case, and the circumstances before and after the crime, the court below did not seem to be unfair since each of the punishment imposed by the Defendants is too uneasible. Thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion above is without merit.

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.