A. Defendants 1 of the misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant A) committed an act of blocking the passage of this case by police officers on account of the lack of the requirements required under Article 6 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and thus, the Defendants’ act does not constitute obstruction of performance of official duties.

3) The sentencing of the lower court (the Defendant A: a fine of KRW 4 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable. B. Each of the lower court’s sentencing of the Defendants (the Prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing) is unfair. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on each of the facts in the instant case under the title “determination on the Defendants’ and their defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment of the lower court. The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, found the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning and found the Defendant guilty in all of them. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, each of the facts in the instant case is found guilty (the testimony and the investigative agency’s statement in Q), according to Q’s testimony and the investigation agency’s statement, Defendant A assault Q. Accordingly, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is rejected

3. In full view of the following circumstances in the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendants and the public prosecutor, the lower court does not seem to have been too heavy or unreasonable on the grounds that the sentence imposed on the Defendants is too heavy and unreasonable. Therefore, all of the Defendants and the public prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing are

D. Unfavorable circumstances: (a) the case of assaulting a police officer in the course of performing official duties is not likely to constitute a crime; (b) Defendant A assaulted two police officers; and (c) Defendant B used two same criminal records in the same manner. The favorable circumstances: the degree of assault is relatively low. Defendant A did not have the same criminal records, and Defendant B did not exceed the fine.