The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by both parties) by the court below is too heavy or unreasonable as the penalty (the fine of three million won) imposed by the court below is too heavy.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor prior to the determination.

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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009). The crime of this case is committed by the Defendant entering the D District District one time as a drinking part of the horse E, and continuously obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of official duties concerning the duties, etc. of the person in need of protection by holding the F’s face part of the F’s face part at one time as a hand, and thus, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties against the police officer with regard to the duties, etc. of the person in need of protection is established. Since the crime of this case was committed at the same time at the same place, it is reasonable to evaluate the crime as one act in light of social norms, it is deemed that there exists a commercial competition relationship.

Nevertheless, the court below decided as one of the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The court below's decision is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's and prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal as above. The court below's decision is reversed, and

[Discied Judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is the same as that of each corresponding column of the judgment below.