The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

The lower court applied Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act to the crime that the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by assaulting police officers G and H who perform the duties of measures under 112, and inflicted an injury on H among them, and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act to the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, and, after applying Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act to the crime of interference with the performance of official duties to H and the crime of interference with the performance of official duties to H, there is an ordinary

Considering that punishment is imposed on more severe injury crimes, but again, the crime of injury to H and the crime of interference with the execution of official duties to G constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment was imposed by aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with severe injury crimes.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, each of the above crimes committed by the Defendant, on February 4, 2017, by the Defendant, was committed in the course of obstructing the performance of official duties by the police officer G, and assaulting H by the Defendant, and the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties by the Defendant’s police officers and the injury to H by the police officers who sustained the injury at the time was committed on February 4, 2017, at the first floor of the Seoyang-gu D Building, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul, upon receiving 112 reports.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, among the above crimes, the punishment provided for the crime of injury to H with the largest punishment. In such a case, the scope of punishment is not more than 7 years of imprisonment, and it is clear that the scope of punishment is not more than 7 years and there is a difference between 10 years and 6 months of imprisonment, which is the scope of punishment in the event of aggravated concurrent crimes as in the original judgment. Therefore, misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the number of the above crimes by the lower court, has affected the conclusion