Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

2. Prior to the determination on the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor, we examine ex officio prior to the determination on the grounds of appeal (the defendant was served with a notice of receipt of court records by this court on January 6, 2016, but did not submit a statement of reasons for appeal within 20 days, which is the submission period for the appeal, and the appeal does not contain any reasons for the appeal, and the judgment below has the following reasons for reversal of authority). In the event of intimidation against multiple public officials performing the same official duties, the crime of obstructing the performance of multiple official duties is established according to the number of public officials performing the official duties. If the above intimidation was committed at the same place where the act of intimidation was committed in the same opportunity, and it is evaluated as one act under social norms, multiple interferences with the performance of official duties are in a mutually competitive relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009). The court below duly adopted and examined four police officers such as F, upon receiving a report from the defendant, and dispatched the defendant by the police officer in order.

Therefore, interference with the performance of official duties by police officers F, E, and G is an ordinary competition relationship as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Code.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties as above is in a substantive competition relationship.

In this regard, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained in this respect.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is unfair since there is a ground for reversal ex officio as above.