The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal and the defense counsel clearly withdraw the part concerning the mental and physical weakness of the grounds for appeal on the first trial of the appellate court, and thus, they shall not be determined.

A. In light of the legal principles, it is true that the Defendant took a bath to the victim E and F as stated in the judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter “the instant speech”); while the Defendant, at the time, took a bath to the C Sports Center prior to the C Sports Center, which does not have any means around d when he takes a new wall time, and thus, there is a possibility that he can hear.

did not recognize it.

Therefore, the defendant did not have awareness of the public performance, which is the element of the offense of insult.

B. Sentencing 1 Sentencing 200,000,000 won, which is too unreasonable.

2. Determination ex officio (determination on the number of crimes of insult and interference with the performance of official duties);

A. The summary of the facts constituting the crime in this part, recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, is that the defendant received 112 reports and publicly insulting E and F, which are police officers dispatched. Such insult is conducted in the same opportunity at the same place, and is evaluated as a single act in light of social norms, and thus, the relationship between the offense of insult against E and F is recognized.

B. (i) When an act of assault is committed against multiple public officials performing the same official duties, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is established according to the number of public officials performing the same official duties, and when the above act of assault was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and is assessed as a single act in light of social norms, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties by multiple public officials is in a mutually competitive relationship (see Supreme Court Decisions 4294Da415, Sept. 28, 1961; 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009). Sheet, the first instance court lawful.