The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court determined that this part of the facts charged constituted a case where there is no evidence to prove the crime on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to reinforce the facts, in addition to the confession of the Defendant, although the Defendant led to the confession of this part of the facts charged and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. due to the purchase of marijuana from January to February 2, 2016) were presented.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the evidence for reinforcement, or by misapprehending the facts.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, confiscation, additional collection KRW 4,667,713) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. Defendant A1) Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles (the interference with the performance of special duties and the injury caused by the obstruction of the performance of special duties) committed a resistance by Defendant, while being arrested by police officers from Z and AA, but there was no intention to interfere with the performance of official duties, since the Defendant did not recognize that he was a police officer who is a public official of Z and AA, there was no intention to interfere with the performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime interfering with the performance of official duties, or by misapprehending the facts, thereby obstructing the performance of official duties of Z and AA and causing injury to A in the process of carrying an electric shock machine, which is a dangerous object, even though the Defendant knew that it is a police officer who is a public official of Z and AA.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a total of KRW 4,967,713, which was sentenced to imprisonment of three years and six months, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is 1) The Defendant is a person without a name, who was aware of a smartphone app “O” from January 2, 2016 to February 2, 2016 at children of the U.S., Gangnam-gu, Seoul. (D.).