All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Fine of 5,00,000 won, Defendant B and C of each fine of 2,00,000 won.

1. As to the first instance judgment against the Defendants (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties)

A. A summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and Sentencing in sentencing) did not have any fact that Defendant A had the face of police officer I once drinking (the Defendant was fluorily protruding the front part of police officer I’s front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the police officer I, who is faced with the face face), and the police already dissolved the assembly and immediately left the front part of the assembly in India and left the front part of the assembly in India. This constitutes an unlawful performance of official duties, because it violates the requirements of the front part of the assembly set forth in the instructions for gas sprayers operation and the minimum necessary part of the assembly.

The punishment sentenced by the court below is too heavy.

2) As seen earlier, Defendant B (misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, and improper sentencing), the Defendant’s act of setting up against it does not interfere with the performance of official duties.

The punishment sentenced by the court below is too heavy.

3) Defendant C (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing) did not have a police officer K on the one with a flag of the Defendant, and the Defendant’s act did not interfere with the performance of official duties, as it is to oppose against illegal performance of official duties.

The punishment sentenced by the court below is too heavy.

4) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B and C is too minor.

B. Determination 1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to Defendant A and C’s assertion of mistake in the facts at the court below’s judgment, the fact that Defendant A and C have exercised the same tangible power as that stated in the facts charged of this case can be acknowledged, since it can be recognized that Defendant A and C have exercised the same force as stated in the facts charged of this case.