1. The part of the judgment below against Defendant B and C shall be reversed.

2. Defendant B is punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor (the Defendant A)’s sentence (the fine of KRW 2,000,000) sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. Defendant B and C’s sentence (Defendant B: fine of KRW 2,00,000, Defendant C: fine of KRW 1,500,000) declared by the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The instant crime of determining the Prosecutor’s assertion against Defendant A by assaulting the police assigned for special guard, etc. who prevented the Defendant from entering the front city office in the course of entering the front city office building in order to directly deliver to the front city Mayor the letter demanding the Defendant to resolve the strike with the other participants as the head of the FF Trade Union G branch, which is the head of the said branch, of the said sub-branch, with the other participants in the assembly, thereby obstructing the legitimate performance of public duties concerning the protection and management of the viewing office building by using multiple power, and the nature and circumstances of the relevant crime are not to be

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) there is no history that the Defendant was punished for a fine exceeding the same crime; and (b) the recognition of the instant crime and seriously reflects his/her mistake; and (c) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the instant crime, the prosecutor’s assertion as above is groundless since the sentence imposed by the lower court is too

B. The crime of this case as to Defendant B and C’s assertion requires the Defendants to resolve the strike of the FF Trade Union bus headquarters, along with other participants at the other assemblies, to directly deliver the letter to the former Mayor, which means that the Defendants interfered with the legitimate performance of public duties concerning the protection and management of viewing and viewing office buildings by assaulting the police assigned for special guard, etc. who prevented the Defendants from entering the former Mayor in the course of entering the former Mayor’s office in order to directly deliver it to the former Mayor. The crime of this case’s assertion that the nature and crime

However, the defendants are the same crimes.