A. Defendant A asserts that the punishment imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(Defendant A withdrawn the existing assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the normal data of September 9, 2015.

Defendant

B Defendant B asserts that the sentence imposed by the court below (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. The prosecutor (hereinafter “Defendant A”) found the facts guilty (not guilty part) to be erroneous (hereinafter “I”) by the prosecutor, for the following reasons, each of the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights against F and G, H, F, and I Co., Ltd.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of all the crimes of conflict with R, and found the defendant not guilty of abuse of authority and obstruction of another's exercise of one's one's one's one's one's one's one's one's one's one's one's one's one's one's one's another's one's one's one's one's one's one's one's one

① Defendant A demanded the head of M Dong F and W Myeon G to change part of the construction works ordered in Mdong and W, but F and G refused it, and demanded the Mdong and W Myeon office to submit documents, such as the list of construction works. It is reasonable to deem that the act of Defendant A’s demanding submission of documents, such as the list of construction works, was for personal purposes of F and G which did not comply with his/her request. The act of Defendant A’s demanding submission of documents, such as the list of construction works, constitutes the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights, on the ground that there is no intrinsic difference between the NMyeon H, O Ro, O Ro, and O Do ju S, and the abuse of authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights against F and G. As such, Defendant A’s demanding submission of documents

② Defendant A demanded H and F to change part of the construction works ordered in N and Mdong, and if not, Defendant A would be at a disadvantage to H, F and relevant public officials by using the status and authority of the Si Council.