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.

1. The reasoning of the appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two million won in penalty) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

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

Where an act of assault is committed against multiple public officials who perform the same official duties, a crime of obstructing the performance of multiple official duties is established according to the number of public officials who perform the same official duties, and where the act of assault and intimidation was committed in the same place at the same time, and is assessed as one act under the social concept, the crime of obstructing the performance of multiple official duties is in a relationship of conceptual concurrence.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be found to have committed an assault by the police officer G and F when he was dispatched to the her for the same official duty one time by hand after receiving a report from the her master, and the defendant was performing the same official duty. Since each of the above assault assault committed by the defendant at the same place at the same time, it is reasonable to evaluate the defendant's act of the same opportunity, and it is reasonable to evaluate it as one of the acts in light of social norms. Thus, the obstruction of the defendant's execution of official duties to the above police officers by the defendant is in a relationship of commercial concurrence.

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the crime of obstructing the execution of each official duties of this case is in a substantive competition relationship.

In light of the above, the court below's measure that aggravated punishment was unlawful and such error affected the judgment.

As such, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

【Grounds for the Judgment of the Court】 The facts constituting the crime and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court, and the summary of the evidence.