The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

In the event that the act of assault and intimidation was committed against multiple public officials performing the same official duties, multiple crimes of obstruction of the performance of official duties are established according to the number of public officials performing the same official duties. In the event that the above assault and intimidation were committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and are assessed as one act under the social concept, multiple crimes of obstruction of the performance of official duties are in a relationship of mutual concurrence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009). In the event that one act interferes with a police officer’s official duties while causing an injury to the police officer, the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties and the crime of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5075 Decided April 24, 2008, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant assaulted the police officer E and F while performing official duties in the Defendant’s residence on May 1, 2019 and inflicted an injury by assaulting the police officer E.

According to the above facts, each crime of obstruction of performance of duties against police officers E and F was committed at the same time at the same place, and the crime of obstruction of performance of duties against E and the crime of injury to E are also in an ordinary concurrent relationship. Thus, the above three crimes of obstruction of duties and the crime of injury to E should be sentenced to the punishment prescribed for the most severe injury.

Nevertheless, the court below, however, deemed the defendant's obstruction of performance of official duties against the police officers E and F as substantive concurrent crimes and aggravated concurrent crimes. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the judgment below cannot be maintained.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio.