The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Seized evidence 1 and 2 shall be confiscated, respectively.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

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.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Special Intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case refers to “the Defendant, F, G, etc., who is the victim, is identified as a gambling reporter from the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the seat of the police station.” If the police station does not disclose it, the police station should be replaced by 1 gasoline and 1 gater, which is a dangerous object, and acted as if it were unfolded, it constitutes intimidation

Therefore, each victim F and G are established with respect to each victim F and the above special intimidation. Although it is reasonable to view that each of the above special intimidation is in the relationship of ordinary concurrence as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act, it is a relationship of simple concurrence, and the judgment of the court below which omitted the application of Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act with respect to ordinary concurrence in the application of the law is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles

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

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of the above ex officio reversal.