All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Each sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment by each of the Defendants) against the Defendants in summary of the grounds for appeal is deemed unfair.

2. The Defendants agreed with the victim of the assault and agreed with the victim, and agreed with the counterpart police officer of the obstruction of performance of official duties.

However, the defendant A has been punished five times as a crime of violence, and the defendant B has been punished as a suspended sentence for committing a crime of obstruction of official duties and violence in 2015 as a similar law.

In addition, punishing a public official for a crime that interferes with the execution of official duties is to protect the public official itself, so even though the public official who is the object of the crime does not want the punishment, it is difficult to consider it as a condition of sentencing.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of all other circumstances, such as the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is only within the scope of reasonable discretion, and it is difficult to view that it is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals by the Defendants are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.