2. The judgment of the defendant is recognized that his mistake is divided, and the victim D does not want the punishment of the defendant.

However, the crime of this case was destroyed by the defendant at a restaurant, and the crime of this case was committed in collusion with the co-defendant B of the court below that interferes with the performance of official duties of police officers dispatched in collusion with the co-defendant B of the court below and the nature of the crime of this case is not very good. The defendant again committed the crime of this case despite several times of violence crimes, in consideration of the defendant's age, sexual behavior and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and the conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the defendant

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal 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.

(a) Defendant A: Articles 136(1) and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Article 366 of the Criminal Act (a point of obstructing the performance of official duties);

B. Defendant B: Articles 136(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Since it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the “the choice of each sentence of imprisonment,” the judgment of the court below is modified under Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, and the decision of the court