The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., 10 months of imprisonment) by the lower court (e., 10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

In the case of assault and intimidation 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 the same official duties, and in the case of assault and intimidation committed in the same place at the same time and deemed as one act under the concept of society, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are crimes of mutual concurrence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, each of the charges of this case's obstruction of performance of official duties among the charges of this case was arrested from police officers F and G who received 112 a report and dispatched by the Defendant as a flagrant offender, and the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender from F and G, the F's body was pushed by hand with hand, and he was urged by G's hand. This constitutes an assault against police officers committed at the same place at the same time, and thus, each of the charges of obstruction of official duties constitutes a crime of obstruction of official duties by police officers, and each of the crimes of obstruction of official duties constitutes a commercial concurrence under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the court below omitted the application of Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act to the ordinary concurrence of crimes of obstruction of the performance of official duties on the ground that each of the above crimes constitutes a simple crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the acceptance of crimes

3. As such, there exists a ground for ex officio reversal of each of the judgment below's obstruction of performance of official duties, and the court below rendered a single sentence on the ground that this part of the facts charged and the rest of the crime of interference with business constituted concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Accordingly, the judgment below cannot be maintained in its entirety.