2. The lower court rendered a sentence in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the fact that the victimized police officers want to be punished, the Defendants were the first offender and the confession of the Defendants, and the victim H of the crime of destruction did not want to be punished by Defendant A.

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

In order to establish the legal order as argued by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, there is a need to strictly punish a person who interferes with the performance of public duties committed by a legitimate public authority.

However, these circumstances appear to have already been considered in the court below and the sentencing conditions mentioned above have been significantly changed in the court below.

It is difficult to see it.

In full view of the above sentencing, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unffortunate.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal against the Defendants by the prosecutor is without merit. Thus, each of the appeals is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.