The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The lower court’s sentence (three million won of fine) against the Defendant in light of the gist of the grounds for appeal is deemed unreasonable.

2. The judgment that the Defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case and against the mistake, the extent of assault against the victimized police officers is relatively minor, the Defendant agreed to the victim D with the victim interfering with the business smoothly, and the Defendant did not have any other criminal record except the fine imposed due to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act for the last 30 years, is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant that the defendant interferes with restaurant business and interferes with the legitimate performance of official duties by committing the so-called "bomb" crime that prevents the defendant from performing his duties, and form a socially strict criminal atmosphere in relation to the seriousness of the damage, and that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties needs to be punished in order to establish the state's legal order and eradicate the light of public authority, and that the crime is not good in light of the form of obstruction of official duties.

In addition, the age, character and conduct, the environment, the circumstances and results of each of the crimes in this case, etc., all of the sentencing conditions in this case and the result of the application of sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court sentencing committee.

1. Standards for types of punishment and of punishment;

(a) Type 1 of the obstruction of performance of official duties [Determination of Punishment] and the mitigation element of the obstruction of performance of official duties [Special Convicts]: In a case where the degree of assault, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is minor (the scope of recommending punishment): One month to eight months of imprisonment;

(b) No sentencing criteria for the crime of interference with business are set.

2. In full view of the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act among the crimes against which the sentencing guidelines have been set and the crimes for which the sentencing guidelines have not been set, the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair, and thus, the prosecutor’s above assertion is reasonable.