The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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 (3 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio determination.

Where an act of assault or 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 the same official duties, and where the above act of assault or intimidation was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and is assessed as one act under the social concept, the crime of obstructing the performance of multiple official duties is in a relationship of mutual concurrence.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the police officer F and G were dispatched to the police officer F and G upon receiving a report on damage received by the Defendant F and attempted to arrest H as a current offender. The Defendant can be aware of the facts of assaulting the above police officer at the same place as indicated in the facts charged in order to prevent the above police officer from arresting H at the same place. As such, it is reasonable to evaluate the act of assault committed at the same time at the same place as one act in light of social norms, and therefore, the obstruction of the performance of official duties by F and G is in a relationship of commercial concurrence as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the crime of obstructing the execution of each official duties of this case is in a substantive competition relationship.

In light of the above, the court below's measure that aggravated punishment was unlawful and such error affected the judgment.

I would like to say.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below.