All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) of the lower court against the Defendants (e.g., imprisonment for seven months, suspension of execution for two years, Defendant B: imprisonment for three months and one year of suspended execution for one year) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties needs to be strictly punished as a crime that undermines the function of the State by nullifyinging the legitimate exercise of public authority. Even if the Defendants were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, the Defendants’ injury and the attitude of the obstruction of the performance of official duties were very poor.

However, Defendant A and Defendant B did not have any force on crimes related to violence and obstruction of performance of official duties other than those sentenced to a fine once for the crime of assault and injury, and the Defendants appear to have led to the confession of the crime of this case and to be against the mistake thereof. Defendant A agreed with the victim E, G, H, and paid a sum of KRW 3,350,000 for the agreed amount to the above victims. In relation to the instant case, Defendant A would have paid KRW 2,100,000 to the above K on September 1, 2014 pursuant to the payment order filed by the police officer K against Defendant A (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Gu4320, Daejeon District Court Decision 200, Sept. 1, 2014). In full view of various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, before and after the crime, the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is unreasonable.

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