All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a case where the prosecutor (1) misleads the defendant as to the facts (1) and interferes with the prosecutor's performance of official duties of C who lawfully "the prosecutor's room inspection of prisoners", and C exercises power to restrain this, but the judgment below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

B. According to the records of the instant case, even if the Defendant was served with a notice of receipt of the records of trial on October 24, 2019 after filing an appeal against the lower judgment on October 24, 2019, the Defendant did not submit a written reason for appeal within the submission period for a legitimate reason for appeal; the petition of appeal does not contain any reason for appeal; the Defendant did not appear at the trial date of the first instance court; and the record thereof does not reveal the reason for ex officio investigation even after examining the record.

따라서 형사 소송법 제 361조의 4 제 1 항에 의하여 피고인의 항소를 기각하는 결정을 하여야 할 것이나, 검사의 항소에 관하여 판결을 하는 이상 별도로 항소 기각 결정을 하지 아니하고, 함께 판결로 선고하기로 한다( 대법원 1969. 5. 27. 선고 69도 143 판결 등 참조). 2. 검사의 사실 오인 주장에 관한 판단 원심은 그 판시와 같은 사정을 들어 교도관 C이 한 행위는 적법한 공무집행이라 볼 수 없고 이에 대항하여 피고인이 교도관 C의 낭 심과 음경을 움켜쥔 후 잡아당기는 행위는 공무집행 방해죄에 해당하지 않는다고

In light of this, the lower court acquitted this part of the charges.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it was sufficiently proven that the correctional officer C’s act constitutes legitimate execution of official duties beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see, and otherwise, acceptable.