공무집행방해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant committed a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties against the police officers, who called their friendlys and dynamics, at the fighting site of the branch, and there was no physical contact with the police officers, and there was no fact that the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
2. Determination
A. In the case of assault and intimidation against multiple public officials who perform the same official duties ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio determination, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are established according to the number of public officials who perform official duties. The above assault and intimidation were committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and where the act of assault and intimidation was assessed as one act under the social norms, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are crimes of conceptual concurrence.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009). According to the records of this case, it is recognized that the Defendant used tangible force, such as the date and time, time, and place indicated in the facts charged in this case with D, C, and the police officers who intend to arrest L and M as a flagrant offender, in order or at the same time, and the body of the police officers who intend to arrest L and M as a flagrant offender. The above act of the Defendant took place in the same opportunity at the same place, and it is evaluated as one act in light of social norms, and thus, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance against the above police officers are in a mutually competitive relationship.
However, since the court below did not determine the number of crimes between each of the above crimes and omitted in the application of the law, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more in this regard.
However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal.
(b).