The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of KRW 4,00,00) in the original judgment is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. Where an act of violence or intimidation has been committed against multiple public officials who perform the same official duties in judgment ex officio, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are committed according to the number of public officials who perform official duties;

If the act of assault and intimidation was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and is assessed as one act under the concept of society, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are in a mutually competitive relationship.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009). According to the records, G police officers, K, and I received 112 reports, and sent them to the same time before the E fishing time in Y in Yannam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Incheon and carried out the duty of reporting 112. The Defendant first assaults police officers G at the same place, and then committed verbal abuse and assault to K and I to control them.

As such, it is reasonable to evaluate the act of assault committed at the same time at the same time as one act in light of social norms. As such, each offense of obstruction of performance of official duties against police officers G, K, and I is in a commercial concurrence relationship as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

However, the lower court recognized all the charges that the Defendant committed a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by assaulting police officers G, K, and I by committing a crime of obstruction of official duties, but determined that only a single crime of obstruction of official duties is established against the Defendant.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the acceptance of crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties, which affected the judgment.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in its entirety pursuant to 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 reversed, and the remaining guilty parts are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.