The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of interference with the performance of official duties among the facts charged in the instant case, and dismissed the prosecution on the charge of assault, and the prosecutor filed an appeal only on the guilty portion. Accordingly, the dismissed part of the instant prosecution was separated and finalized after the lapse of the period of appeal.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction among the judgment below.

2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (five million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor prior to the judgment.

In the event of assault and intimidation against multiple public officials performing the same official duties, the crime of interference with the performance of multiple official duties is established according to the number of public officials performing the same official duties. The act of assault and intimidation committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and in the event that the act of assault and intimidation is assessed as one act under the social concept, the crime of interference with the performance of multiple official duties is an ordinary competition relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be recognized that he spread the oral frame toward the police officer H at the date and at the place, and twice at the same time and at the place, the head part of G police officer's head was assaulted by police officers at the same time and at the same time. As such, it is reasonable to evaluate the defendant's act of assault and intimidation at the same place as above as one act under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

In that regard, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of obstructing the performance of official duties was a single crime, and so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of crimes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Conclusion.