The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence of the court below against the defendant (2 million won of a fine) is too unfluent and unfair.

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

In a case where violence and threat is committed against multiple public officials performing the same official duties, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are established according to the number of public officials performing official duties. However, only when such assault and threat were committed at the same place where the same opportunity is recognized as one act under the social concept, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are in a mutually concurrent relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009). In this case, the Defendant’s crime of obstruction of performance of official duties was committed by assault, etc. to several police officers, such as I and K, and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties was committed at a different time and place between “EM,” and “a police box within the H police box,” and thus, it is reasonable to deem that there

Therefore, the lower court should have determined the applicable punishment within the scope of one of the concurrent crimes pursuant to the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. However, unless the lower court did not add aggravating concurrent crimes by being identified as one of the single crimes, the lower judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows after oral argument.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by this court is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for the correction of “L” as “I” in Part II, Section 17 of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;