공무집행방해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year of suspended execution of four months, one year of community service work 40 hours) is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant's authority, in a case where a multiple public officials engaged in the same official duties were assaulted or threatened, the crime of interference with the performance of multiple official duties is established according to the number of public officials who performed official duties. In a case where the act of assault and intimidation was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and where the act of assault and intimidation was assessed as one act under the concept of society, the crime of interference with multiple official duties is in a mutually competitive 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 was taken a drinking test from a police officer at the date and at the place of the judgment of the court below, and as the result, the defendant was “C
“Chock,” such as “Abre,” and as a result, from F or G of a auxiliary police officer who was engaged in the duty to support drinking control, “A” bit of bitch bitch flobb, as the bitch flob.
The phrase "breathing the above auxiliary police officer's head at his/her hand and with his/her hand at two times, it can be recognized that the above auxiliary police officer's head is faced with each other by being pushed away with each other. As such, it is reasonable to evaluate the act of assault committed in the same opportunity at the same place as above as one act in light of social norms, and therefore, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties in F and G is in a commercial competition relationship as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act.
However, the court below erred in determining the sentencing of the defendant by omitting the commercial competition relationship. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained further.
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio. Thus, Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.