All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the sentencing of the lower court (each of the Defendant’s KRW 3 million) is deemed unreasonable as it excessively unhued.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below’s decision on July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The court below rendered the above sentence to the Defendants on the grounds of sentencing as indicated in its reasoning. The circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing alleged by the prosecutor in the trial, such as the Defendants’ lawful execution of official duties, are sufficiently taken into account when determining the punishment at the court below, and the Defendants’ confession and reflects the crimes; Defendant A’s use of violence in a somewhat insulting manner, such as giving a police officer a desire to take the face; however, it is difficult to view that the degree of violence used by the Defendants is more serious compared to similar cases; the Defendants did not have any history of being subject to criminal punishment for the same kind of crime before the instant case; and Defendant B was an initial crime without criminal records.