The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The Defendant had a mental and physical loss or mental weak condition under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of the judgment on the Defendant A’s mental and physical disorder, it is found that the Defendant was aware of drinking prior to the instant crime, but in light of all the circumstances such as the background, means and method of each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things due to drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes.

It is not visible.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. As to the Defendants’ wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendants made a serious desire and injury to the police officers called out while they were wraped with each other. Defendant A, even while being carried out in a police box or under investigation, shows that the nature of the crime is very not good, in order to establish the state’s legal order and eradicate the light of public authority, the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, such as the instant case, need to be punished. The degree of interference with the execution of violence and official duties is serious, and the degree of interference with the execution of official duties is serious, and the victim police officers want to punish the Defendants.

On the other hand, the Defendants recognized each of the crimes of this case and against their mistake, the Defendants appears to have committed each of the crimes of this case by contingency, despite the fact that the Defendants received juvenile protective disposition, they did not have any record of criminal punishment, and the Defendants are still aged 19 years and older.