A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A. Each sentence of the judgment of the court below (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and 2 months: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable.

(b) the above-mentioned sentence of the 2nd judgment of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for an ex officio judgment.

As to the judgment of the court of first instance, each of the judgment of the court below was pronounced, the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above appeal cases. Since each of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and a single sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained any more.

Meanwhile, in the event that a multiple public official who performs the same official duties commits violence or intimidation, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is established according to the number of public officials who perform the same official duties. In the event that the act of assault or intimidation was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and is assessed as one act under the social concept, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties by multiple persons is in an ordinary competition relationship (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009). Ultimately, in the instant case, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties by police officers N andO is established, and the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties constitutes an ordinary competition relationship, even though the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties by the court below did not apply Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles concerning the number of crimes by punishing the crime of interference with the performance of official duties as a substantive concurrent crime with the crime of fraud.

Therefore, even in this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. The court below's decision has such reasons for reversal as above. Accordingly, the defendant's decision on sentencing is unfair and prosecutor's.