The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Where an act of assault or intimidation is committed against multiple public officials who perform the same official duties in judgment ex officio, the crime of obstructing the performance of multiple official duties is established according to the number of public officials who perform the official duties, and where the above act of assault or intimidation was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and is assessed as one act under the social concept, the crime of obstructing the performance of multiple official duties is in a commercial competition relationship.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the police officer E and G were performing the duty of drinking measurement as to the charge of drinking driving under the F, a daily driving of the defendant, at the same place, and the defendant who is dissatisfied with this order was aware of the fact that the police officer Eul used the police officer's assaulting the police officer Eul at the same place, and immediately used the police officer's photographing the scene, and the crime of violence against E and G was established against the defendant. On the other hand, it is reasonable to evaluate the act of assaulting the same opportunity at the same place as one act under social norms. Thus, the crime of interference with the performance of official duties against the above E and G is a commercial concurrence under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties of this case is in the relation of a single crime.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of crimes, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

3. As such, the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of this and the facts charged by the court and the summary of the evidence are as follows.