The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year of suspended sentence of six months, one year of suspended sentence of imprisonment, and one observation of protection) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

In the event of assault and intimidation 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 the same official duties. The act of assault and intimidation committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and where it is assessed as one act under social norms, the crime of interference with the performance of multiple official duties is in an ordinary competition relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant sent to the site after receiving a report by the defendant 112 who was threatened at the time and at the place, and tried to hear the statement against the defendant, and it is reasonable to recognize the facts of assault by the police officer F with the view to carrying out the same left hand hand of the police officer F, and thus, it is reasonable to evaluate the defendant's act of assault committed in the same opportunity at the same place under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

However, the lower court deemed the Defendant’s obstruction of performing official duties against each police officer as substantive concurrent crimes and aggravated concurrent crimes. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of crimes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In this regard, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the defendant's unfair argument for sentencing, and the judgment below is again ruled as follows after pleading.