The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the penalty (4 million won of a fine) declared by the court below against the defendant is too unhued.

2. ex officio determination of official authority: (a) where the act of assault and intimidation was committed against multiple public officials who perform the same official duties, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are established according to the number of public officials who perform official duties; and (b) where the act of assault and intimidation was committed at the same place with the same opportunity and is assessed as one act in light of social norms, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties can be deemed as crimes of conceptual concurrence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, around June 9, 2014, the defendant received 112 report from the defendant to the front of Dobong-gu Seoul, Seoul, on the road where he was under the influence of alcohol and thus he was used on the road where he was under the influence of alcohol, and requested the defendant to be dispatched to the scene and to be informed of his personal information. The above police officers sent to the scene of the Seoul provincial Police Station Estation Estation belonging to the Seoul provincial Police Station Estation, and required the defendant to be informed of his personal information, and the above police officers deemed to have been subject to the same opportunity to interfere with the police officers' performance of duties at the same place where he was under the influence of the police officers.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below omitted the judgment on the relation to the defendant's 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.