The judgment below

Of them, the part except the case of application for compensation order shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for eight months, and the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because each of the punishments (two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for eight months, and one year of suspended sentence of imprisonment for six months) declared by the court below against the Defendants is too unfasible.

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

In cases where violence and threat is committed against multiple public officials performing the same official duties, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are established according to the number of public officials performing official duties. In cases where the above assault and threat were committed at the same place with the same opportunity, and it is evaluated as one act under the social concept, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are crimes of mutual concurrence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.) Therefore, based on the above legal principles, D and I, a police officer, were dispatched to the Defendants after receiving a report of damage received from the Defendants and carried out the processing of the report and investigation. The Defendants committed an assault against the above police officers at the same place. As such, it is reasonable to evaluate the act of assault committed in the same opportunity at the same place as one act in light of social concept. Thus, each offense of obstruction of performance of official duties against D and I constitutes a commercial concurrence as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that aggravated punishment on the ground that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties of this case committed a substantive competition relation is unlawful, and such mistake affected the judgment, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is again reversed through pleading.