All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal asserts that the sentencing of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentencing of the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The judgment of the court below agreed with the victims who are public officials in charge of welfare, and all the victims who are police officials do not want to be punished by the defendant by mutual consent, and all the victims were committed in the first instance, and they were committed in depth, and they were suffering from high-speed pains and hard disks, and economic difficulties are favorable to the defendant.

However, there is a great need to protect public officials in charge of civil service from violence and intimidation, as the defendant shows the same attitude of putting gasoline in the community service center where there are many people, and by committing a crime such as intimidation and smoking, it appears that victims or witnesses were exposed to a large fear, and actually, the risk of the act of the defendant was very high.

In addition, the defendant has a lot of history of punishment for violent crimes, and in particular, in the past, he has been sentenced to a punishment by blring oil to the mother's cafeteria and destroying a blick to the mother's cafeteria, and has committed the crime of this case during the period of probation.

Considering the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, and the result of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.