The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the penalty imposed by the court below on the defendant (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where the act of assault and intimidation was committed against multiple public officials who perform the same official duties ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant's ex officio, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are established according to the number of public officials who perform official duties. In a case where the above act of assault and intimidation was committed with the same opportunity at the same place, and where the act of assault and intimidation was assessed as one act under the concept of society, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are crimes

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant was found to have obstructed the legitimate performance of official duties of F and G, a police officer belonging to the Nowon Police Station E-gu, by assaulting F, a police officer belonging to the Nowon Police Station E-gu, by taking 112 on the date and time of criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, at a place where 112 was reported, and by using f, a police officer belonging to the Nowon Police Station E-gu, a police officer belonging to the Nowon Police Station. Since the crime of this case was committed at the same place, it is reasonable to evaluate the defendant as one act in light of social norms, each crime of obstruction of official duties

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below omitted the judgment on the relation of acceptance of the crime of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the number of crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties. In this regard, the judgment below cannot be maintained

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

Criminal facts

(b).