The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the punishment imposed by the court below for the defendant is unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, in a case where the act of assault and threat 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. In a case where the above assault and threat took place in the same opportunity at the same place, and is assessed as one act under the social concept, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are crimes of conceptual concurrence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009). The Defendant’s act of assaulting the same opportunity at the same place as above is reasonable to evaluate the act of assaulting the same opportunity as one act in terms of social norms, and thus, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties against E and Gyeong F is deemed to be in conflict with each other under Article 40 of the Criminal Act, because it is reasonable to judge that: (a) the Defendant’s act of assaulting the same opportunity at the same place as above is a single act in terms of social norms; (b) the Defendant’s act of unfolding the left shoulder of E with his hand; and (c) the Defendant’s act of towing the string of E with his hand; and (d) continuously towing the string of E with his hand; and (c) the Defendant’s act of obstructing performance of official duties against E and Gyeong F is a conflict of interests as provided for in Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

Next, each of the acts constitutes several crimes, and there is an ordinary competition relationship as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Code between the two acts, and between the injury to E and the obstruction of the performance of official duties, and the injury to F, and the obstruction of the performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the court below's measure aggravated punishment on the ground that each of the crimes of obstruction of the performance of official duties in this case and each of the crimes of obstruction of the performance of official duties are in conflict with each other.