All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. In full view of the fact-finding, Defendant A, under the direction of Defendant A to move the vehicle from the victimized police officer E, was at the site of Defendant B at the time of assaulting Defendant B; Defendant A attempted to escape from the site of Defendant A following E; Defendant B used to arrest Defendant B by putting a defect to the scene of arrest; on the other hand, Defendants conspired with the same police officer; and in full view of the fact that the Defendants used to commit assault and assault the same police officer, there was an implied agreement among the Defendants.

As such, there is a conspiracy to commit a crime of obstructing the execution of official duties of this case.

It is reasonable to see that it is.

However, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts in the judgment of the court of the first instance that acquitted the defendant for lack of evidence of the public contest.

B. Each type of punishment (Defendant A 4 million won, Defendant B: fine of KRW 2 million) for one of the first deliberations on sentencing is deemed unfair.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the evidence of this case ( particularly CCTV video recording material) and the record, as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, it appears that Defendant A committed the crime of obstructing the execution of official duties of this case in collusion with the Defendants, even if considering all of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) Defendant A was at the time of her bucket with the victim police officers E’s arms; or (b) Defendant B was at the time of plucking by plucking, plucking, etc.; (c) Defendant A appears to have been at the time to have been sucked (in particular, it appears that Defendant A could not have predicted at all) and each of the above assaulting acts.

It is insufficient to view it.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. In the instant case where there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing that would be specifically considered in the appellate court regarding the unfair argument of sentencing, the first instance court stated in the column of “reasons for sentencing”.