The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not assault police officers as stated in the instant facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Where an act of assault or intimidation was committed against multiple public officials performing the same official duties in the judgment of official authority, a multiple interference with the performance of official duties is established according to the number of public officials performing official duties, and where the above act of assault or intimidation was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and is evaluated as one act in light of social norms, multiple interference with the performance of official duties is in a conceptual concurrence relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009). In full view of evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Defendant’s act constitutes a interference with the performance of official duties against the police officers and EF, respectively, with the execution of official duties, and it is reasonable to evaluate the same opportunity as one act of assault or intimidation in the same place as one act of social norms. Thus, each of the above interference with the performance of official duties is in a conceptual concurrence relationship.

However, the court below held that the act of obstructing the performance of official duties by police officers E and F constitutes a simple crime. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

However, there is reason to reverse ex officio as above.

Even if the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, it is examined in the following three paragraphs.

3. The lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is partially the Defendant’s court.