All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment (2 million won of fine) against Defendant A (unfair punishment) is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant B (the defendant 2) guilty of the above defendants merely resisting the unfair medical treatment, but did not interfere with the business.

2. Determination

A. There are also extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the above defendant made a confession against the defendant A, and the fact that the hospital was found to receive treatment of co-defendant B’s superior wife at night, and when the medical treatment was delayed, it appears that the crime of this case was committed by contingently in the course of protest.

However, there are unfavorable circumstances, such as the above defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, criminal records, motive, means and consequence of the crime, degree of damage, circumstances after the crime, etc., that the above defendant did not promptly treat the relatives, was on the floor of the hospital, and damaged the equipment of the hospital, interfered with the work of the victims who treated other emergency patients at night, and make other patients uneasy, and failure to agree with the victims. Considering the above defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, criminal records, motive and consequence of the crime, degree of damage, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, Co-defendant A, a co-defendant, has delayed treatment and desire to take care of the receiving employee, and has taken a part in it, it can be acknowledged that the victim F, who was treated the patient out of the diagnosis room, had the victim F, who was suffering from the diagnosis room, had the victim F, had the victim F, had the victim F, had the victim f, had the victim f, had the victim f, and had the victim f, and had the victim f, had the victim f, and had the victim f, and had the victim f, had the victim f, and had the victim f, and had the victim f, caused the disturbance. According to the above facts of recognition, the court below found