The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The above sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2) It is unreasonable for the court below to exempt the defendant from the disclosure disclosure notification order, even though there are no special circumstances that may not disclose the personal information of the defendant involved in such exemption from disclosure disclosure order or notification order.

2. We examine the reasons for ex officio appeal before determining the grounds for appeal.

When 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 act of assault or intimidation was committed at the same place in the same opportunity, and is evaluated as one act under the social concept, the crime of obstructing the performance of multiple official duties is in a mutually competitive relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the police officers H and G received 112 reports and prevented them from sending to the same place, and the defendant was aware of the fact that there was a threat to the above police officers by carrying dangerous objects as stated in this part of the facts charged, and it is reasonable to evaluate the act of assault or intimidation at the same place as one act under the social concept, and therefore, the crime of obstructing the performance of special official duties to H and G is in a mutually competitive relationship as stipulated in 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. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the above grounds for reversal ex officio.