All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of the legal principles (related to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (damage to joint property)) and Defendant A merely destroyed the table table solely and did not damage the property indicated in the facts charged in G with G.

2) At the time of the arrest of the Defendants, G is not an offender in the act of committing a crime of destroying property, and G is not an ex post facto offender, as it is not a person to commit a crime of destroying property.

Police I, beyond the criteria for the use of police gear under the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, was threatening to keep G with three single wings for the police.

In the event of arrest of a flagrant offender against G, police officers did not notify the contents of Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

For this reason, the arrest of police officers in the act of committing a crime against G is an illegal performance of official duties. Thus, the Defendants’ act of resistance does not constitute a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties.

B) Defendant B (related to the obstruction of the performance of official duties) only told the body fighting different from I with the I, and did not assault I’s arms, and even if so, I’s arms were deemed to have been cut down.

Even if it does not constitute violence in light of its degree.

3) Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (defendant A: a fine of KRW 7 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s respective sentences against the Defendants are too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles (related to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (damage, etc. to common property) , the Defendant continued to engage in a conflict with B in a singing room, and damaged it by a singing monitor, such as glass and bottle on the table. Accordingly, the Defendant’s attachment of the table is acknowledged.

The above facts of recognition and the evidence mentioned above can be known.