All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the various sentencing conditions of Defendant 1’s instant case, the lower court’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case by the Prosecutor, the lower court’s above sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, when the Defendant was discovered that a police officer, who was a police officer controlling the violation of signal, was designated and distributed the victim, the instant crime was committed, thereby obstructing the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties by leaving the victim away on the road, and causing the victim with an injury requiring medical treatment for three weeks. In light of the details and details of the instant crime, the nature and circumstances of the relevant crime are very poor and heavy, and the instant crime was committed not only with a view to nullifying the police officer’s legitimate execution of public authority, but also with a view to evading the victim’s life or body, if the vehicle, which is a dangerous object, might have a serious damage to the victim’s life or body.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant voluntarily attended the investigative agency and voluntarily surrenders himself to the police agency, and deposited 7 million won for the recovery of damage, and that there is no record of punishment, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In light of the aforementioned factors of sentencing, as seen above, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., as well as various conditions of sentencing indicated in the argument of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court appears to have sentenced 10 months by escaping the lower limit of the recommended range (one year and six months to three years) set forth in the sentencing guidelines, taking into account the aforementioned factors of sentencing, and even if the lower court did not have any special circumstances or changes in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, the lower court’