The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the defendant committed an assault against the police officer called out after receiving a 112 report. However, the judgment below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the defendant's apartment security guards, who are not the police officers at the time, committed an unauthorized intrusion on their own house despite the completion of fighting with the defendant's spouse.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of assault and intimidation against multiple public officials who perform the same official duties ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio determination, 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 where the act of assault and intimidation was assessed as one act under the social norms, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are crimes of conceptual concurrence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009). According to the records of this case, it is recognized that the police officers asked the defendant about the circumstances in which the police officers reported to the defendant, ask him to look at the balthical d's balthical d's balthical d's balthical d's balthical ethical ethical ethical ethical ethm, and used the force to police officers on the same opportunity at the same place where the defendant's house was located. The above act of the defendant is evaluated as one act in light of social norms, and multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties

Nevertheless, the court below erred in failing to deal with each of the above crimes as a regular concurrent crime, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.