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 crimes of conceptual concurrence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009). According to the records, police officers F and G were dispatched to the front of the “Dial Club” located in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan City C upon receiving 112 reports, and were performing the duty of reporting 112. The Defendant first assaulted police officers F at the same place, and committed verbal abuse and assault to police officers G.

As above, it is reasonable to evaluate the act of assault committed at the same time at the same time as a single act in light of social norms. As such, each offense of obstruction of performance of official duties against police officers F and G is in a reciprocal 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 the police officer F and G by assaulting the police officer F and G, 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 pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court shall be as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below.