The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of five million won) imposed by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The lower court ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the ex officio determination prosecutor, determined that the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties by assaulting the police officer E, who was dispatched by the Defendant upon receipt of 112 report, by breaking balp and balping the bals of the police officer E, and balping the balp and balping the bals of the police officer F, etc.,

However, in the case of assault and intimidation against multiple public officials who perform the same official duties, 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 if they are assessed to be one act under the concept of society, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are crimes of mutual concurrence.

(2) The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties is established against police officers E and F, and each crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties is established against police officers E and F, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the number of crimes by omitting the application of Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act to the application of statutes.

However, even if the lower court erred in assessing the number of crimes as above, it did not change the scope of punishment, and thus, it cannot be deemed that such error of the lower court affected the conclusion of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7762, Apr. 9, 2004). Therefore, the lower judgment is not reversed on the ground that it did

3. The instant crime on the assertion of unfair sentencing is an act of assaulting a police officer E, who was dispatched by the Defendant upon receiving a report of 112 that the Defendant had a trial cost as a problem of the drinking value, by cutting down the balp and balp, and destroying the balp of the police officer F, by cutting down the balp and cutting down the balp, etc. of the police officer F.