The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. The sentence (five million won in penalty) that the court below rendered by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unhutiled and unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Prosecutor.

Where a group of public officials who perform the same official duties commits assault and intimidation, the crime of interference with the performance of multiple official duties is established according to the number of public officials who perform the same official duties, and where the act of assault and intimidation as above was committed at the same place in the same opportunity, and is evaluated as one act under the social concept, 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). According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below, the police officers D and E were performing duties, such as the measurement of drinking, etc., to the defendant at the police station in the Suwonnam-gu Police Station C at the time of the instant case, the defendant was in the process of performing duties, and the fact that the defendant assaulted D, first of all, and assaulted E to this end.

In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to evaluate the act of assault committed in the same opportunity at the same place as a single act in light of social concept. Therefore, the crime of interference with the performance of official duties to D and E is an ordinary competition relationship.

However, the court below held that the obstruction of the execution of each of the official duties of this case is in substantive competition.

Since punishment has been aggravated, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio on the ground that there is a ground for reversal of the above authority, and the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

[Judgment] The facts constituting an offense and summary of evidence recognized by the court and the evidence related thereto.