공무집행방해등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (five million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor prior to the judgment.
In the event of assault and intimidation against multiple public officials performing the same official duties, the crime of interference with the performance of multiple official duties is established according to the number of public officials performing the same official duties. The act of assault and intimidation committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and in the event that the act of assault and intimidation is assessed as one act under the social concept, the crime of interference with the performance of multiple official duties is an ordinary competition relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be found to have committed violence against the police officers at the date and place in the judgment of the court below, in a place where the police officers’ H’s chest is sealed, and in a manner where the police officers committed violence and intimidation in the same opportunity at the same place is assessed as one act under the social concept. As such, it is reasonable to evaluate the defendant’s act of assault and intimidation with the police officers and H as one act under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.
In this regard, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of obstructing the performance of official duties was concurrent crimes, and so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of crimes of obstructing the performance of official duties, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the following is again decided after pleading.
[Grounds for the new judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by this court and summary of evidence are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below.