A. The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of probation, observation of protection, community service hours, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant agreed with the victim of the crime of interference with business affairs.

In relation to the obstruction of the execution of official duties of this case, police officers do not want to punish the defendant.

The defendant is suffering from serious treatment of alcohol dependence symptoms.

There is no criminal history exceeding a fine for the accused.

On the other hand, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is a bad thing that is likely to be committed by the police officer who takes the desire to commit his duties and by flaging or flaging mony power.

There are many criminal records of the same kind of violence against the accused.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, career, family relation, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and the criminal experience, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or is deemed unreasonable as it is too low.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit. Thus, all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.