All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, G meta and C did not find out that Defendant A was a police officer.

Accordingly, the Defendant did not establish a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties against G.

The decision was determined.

G decided to admonish G due to the absence of the victims’ intention to punish B and C, and made B and C receive an agreed amount of KRW 1.5 million.

There is no fact that the defendant received a bribe in connection with his/her duties and abandons his/her duties in return.

B) The Defendant confirmed that there was no intention to punish B and C, and contacted G parents.

There is no fact that the defendant threatened the victim H.

2) At the time of the instant case, G meta and it was impossible to find out that Defendant C was a police officer.

A and B do not constitute a crime of interference with the execution of official duties to G.

The decision was determined.

As for the remaining crimes of assault, the defendant suspended the preparation of the victim's statement without the intention of punishment, and received 1.5 million won as the agreed amount.

Therefore, the money paid by the defendant is an agreement on assault damage, not a bribe related to his/her duties, and there is no fact that he/she has abandoned his/her duties.

B) The Defendant considered only as a mutual agreement on damages and received money.

There is no fact of public offering with A or B regarding abandonment of duties or acceptance of bribery.

B. The punishment of the lower court (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment and a fine of three million won; two years of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment; two years of the suspension of the execution of the punishment; additional collection of 200,000 won; six months of imprisonment and fine of 1.5 million won; two years of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment; and two years of the suspension of the execution of the punishment; and additional collection of KRW 4.5 million) is too unreasonable

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts

A. 1) In full view of the circumstances admitted by the lower court’s duly admitted and examined evidence, the lower court’s judgment held that the Defendants deleted the relevant documents, such as investigation reports and arrest reports, with respect to G arrested as an offender in the act of interference with the performance of official duties.