All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (for each of the Defendants, a fine of KRW 5 million) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, there exists a unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The instant crime is a crime detrimental to the State’s function by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, and requires the Defendants to be subject to corresponding punishment in order to establish national legal order and eradicate the light of public authority.

In addition, the defendant A was sentenced to a fine in 2007, and the defendant B committed the crime of this case even though he had been sentenced to a fine in 1999 due to the obstruction of the performance of official duties.

This is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

However, the Defendants showed the attitude to recognize and reflect the instant crime, and the degree of physical power exercised at the time of the instant case seems to be relatively more severe.

Defendants have no record of criminal punishment heavier than suspended execution prior to the instant case.

This is favorable to the Defendants.

In full view of the above circumstances, comprehensively taking account of all the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and the trial process, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the commission of the crime, means and method, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or is too unfeasible and unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364 (4) of the judgment below is applicable.