The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

evidence of seizure.

1. The Defendant A’s defense counsel on the gist of the grounds of appeal asserted the lower judgment on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of sentencing in the statement of reasons for appeal. However, the Defendant and the defense counsel acknowledged all the facts charged at the first trial date of the first trial, thereby withdrawing the allegation of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles among reasons for

Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants [Defendant A: Imprisonment of one year and two months, confiscation (No. 1), Defendant B: fine of 4,00,000] is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case is found to be disadvantageous to Defendant A, including the following: (a) Defendant A driven a vehicle with no license without a license by driving the vehicle; (b) Defendant A destroyed the net and golf loan, which is a dangerous object of the victim E’s office glass; (c) Defendant B made a false statement as if Defendant B committed the crime; (d) Defendant B made a false statement as if he/she had committed the crime; (c) Defendant A obstructed legitimate execution of duties by threatening police officers by carrying a kitchen knife and a vehicle, which is a dangerous object after driving the vehicle with no license; and (d) Defendant A’s use of the kitchen knife and a vehicle, which is a dangerous object after driving the vehicle with no license; and (e) Defendant

However, Defendant A made confession of all of the crimes of this case and reflects his wrongness in the life of detention for a considerable period of time, Defendant A did not want to be punished against Defendant A by agreement with the victim of damage to special property when Defendant A was in a trial, Defendant A wanted to have his wife against Defendant A when the police officer who caused the crime interfering with the performance of special duties became in a trial. Defendant A deposited KRW 1 million for the victimized police officers who interfered with the performance of special duties in the trial, and all other circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing specified in the argument of this case, including Defendant A’s age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., are taken into consideration.