The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment of KRW 15 million (a fine of KRW 15 million) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds of appeal for ex officio determination prior to determining the grounds of appeal.

When the act of assault and intimidation was 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. The above acts of assault and intimidation were committed in the same place at the same time and are assessed as one act under the concept of society, the multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are crimes of mutual concurrence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be recognized as having committed assault by: (a) the defendant, upon receiving the 112 report, having pushed the chest of police officers G, having pushed the body of H; and (b) having pushed the body of H. Thus, it is reasonable to evaluate the act of assault committed in the same opportunity at the same place as above as one act in light of social concept; (c) therefore, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties against the above police officers is a conceptual concurrence relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court recognized it as a single crime, thereby making it impossible to maintain the lower judgment as it is.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is so decided as follows.

【The reasoning of the judgment in multiple times】 The facts constituting a crime recognized by the court in charge of facts constituting a crime and the summary of evidence and the summary thereof are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the first part of the judgment of the court below is the same as the corresponding column except for changing “the defendant to “the police officer” as “the police officer.”