All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance judgment: the imprisonment of 5 months, and the second instance judgment: the imprisonment of 3 months) of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance on the defendant's ex officio determination were rendered, and the defendant filed each appeal against them, and the court decided to hold the above appeal together with other appeals cases.

However, the judgment of the court below against the defendant should be sentenced to a single punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to each of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed in its entirety, and it is again decided as follows.

[Discied Judgment] The facts constituting an offense and the summary of evidence recognized by the court are identical to the facts constituting an offense and the summary of evidence. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. From among concurrent offenders, even though the reason for sentencing Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act has been punished twice as a crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties and has been punished several times for violent crimes, the fact that the police officer who performed official duties two times during the period of probation and committed the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties is disadvantageous to the police officer.

However, it appears that the defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case, the treatment of alcohol dependence is being given to the defendant's family members, the defendant's family members and branch members want the defendant's preference, and the above police officers agree with the victim police officers and the defendant.