The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles: Police officers speaking the Defendant, and there was a vagabonds, but they did not throw a frosium at the bar, as stated in the judgment of the court below, or did not act as if they had a frosium, frosium, which was broken to them.

In addition, such action does not constitute violence as required by the obstruction of the performance of official duties.

B. Sentencing: The sentence of the lower judgment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In full view of each legal statement of the witness E and F (each police officer) of the lower court and each police statement about them, each police statement about G (W) the police statement, and the investigation report on which field pictures are attached (19 to 24 pages) that correspond to the facts charged, the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment can be fully recognized.

B. In the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, violence includes not only the exercise of direct tangible power against public officials, but also the exercise of indirect tangible power (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9660, Mar. 30, 2017). Thus, the act of acting as if the police officers were shreed with a view to a part of a frodsium, which was broken down by a police officer, with a view to a brupting public order and bruting, etc. constitutes the act of interference with the performance of official duties.

(c)

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Ex officio determination as to the number of crimes

A. In the event that the act of assault and intimidation was committed against multiple public officials performing the same official duties, the crime of obstructing the performance of multiple official duties is established according to the number of public officials performing official duties. In the event that the above act of assault and intimidation was committed at the same time at the same place, and is assessed as one act in light of social norms, the crime of obstructing the performance of multiple official duties is in a mutually competitive relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009). B. According to the record, police officers E and F are “Defendant.”