All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A’s act constitutes self-defense on the ground that Defendant A’s act constitutes self-defense on the ground that: (a) one hand of police officers who want to take the Defendant B by carrying the Defendant’s hand and the Defendant B’s locked the Defendant B, and (b) did not commit any assault that may constitute obstruction of performance of official duties; and (c) the police officer’s act of arresting Defendant B by failing to notify of the doctrine of disturbance, and thus, Defendant A’s act constitutes self-defense.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

(2) The sentence imposed by the court below on the above defendant (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts only used an inappropriate word when a police officer gets off her lock as a mixed-level word, “The police is dwarfing off.”

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the above Defendant (a fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding Defendant A’s assertion (A) considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility according to the spirit of substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous, or until the date of the conclusion of arguments in the appellate court, in light of the content of the first instance court’s judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court.