2. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendants to the victims who reported Defendant B’s assault, and the Defendants jointly inflict an injury on the victims who reported Defendant B, and the police officers who assaulted the police officers dispatched upon receiving the report or arrested and taken custody of the police officers in the global area to prevent the police officers from carrying out their legitimate performance of official duties by assaulting the police officers who control the police officers from committing an act of violence, and thus, the nature and result of the crime is not less than that of the police officers, and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is deemed to be disadvantageous to the Defendants in order to establish the state’s legal order and eradicate the light of public authority.

However, the Defendants recognized all of the crimes of this case and divided their errors, and Defendant B did not have the record of punishment for the same kind of crime, Defendant A did not have the record of criminal punishment in Korea, the injured party did not want to be punished by the above injured party under the agreement with the injured party, the Defendants deposited a certain amount for the victimized police officer, and the Defendants deposited a certain amount for each of the crimes of this case under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendants seem to have committed each of the crimes of this case by contingency under the influence of alcohol.

In full view of the above favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances, as well as the overall conditions of sentencing as seen above, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence to the Defendants is deemed unreasonable, and thus, the prosecutor’s allegation above is without merit.

3. Conclusion, prosecutor.