The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, two hundred hours of community service order, and the observation of protection) on the summary of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, in the event that the act of assault and intimidation was committed against multiple public officials performing the same official duties, the crime of interference with the performance of multiple official duties is established according to the number of public officials performing official duties. The above act of assault and intimidation was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and where the act of assault and intimidation was evaluated as one act under social norms, the crime of interference with the performance of multiple official duties is in a commercial competition relationship (see Supreme Court Decisions 4294Da415, Sept. 28, 1961; 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant committed assault and intimidation to police officers E and F who were dispatched by the defendant after receiving a report 112, and as such, it is reasonable to evaluate the defendant's act of assault and intimidation in the same place at the same time as a result of social concept, and thus, the court below has a concurrent relationship with each of competition under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

In light of the above, the aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes was aggravated, and the scope of each punishment against the defendant is different from the original court (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1216, Feb. 9, 2001, etc.). Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

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