2. In light of the fact that the Defendants clearly perceived that they were police officers performing their duties in the form of wearing uniforms, but assaulted against them, the nature of the crime is very poor.

Defendant

B has been punished three times for violent crimes, such as the crime of destroying property, and Defendant A has been punished for obstructing the performance of official duties on two occasions. In particular, Defendant A has committed a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties in this case during the repeated crime period due to the obstruction of the performance of official duties, and there is a serious question as to whether there is a serious reflect on his act.

However, all of the Defendants recognized their mistakes, deposited money to some police officers for the recovery of damage. Some police officers submitted a written application seeking the Defendant’s wife, agreed with the victim of the crime of damage to property, Defendant A appears to have suffered damage to the previous two parts due to a traffic accident that occurred in 2010, and was likely to have caused an obstacle to the adjustment of labor union, taking full account of the Defendants’ age, sex, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit, and thus, it is deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too excessive and unfair.

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