The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) exercised water power in the course of resistance against police officers. However, as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, was able to walk back the E-wing depth at several times, or walking the F’s head and the bridge by drinking it with the driver’s hand, and hacking the F’s hand, and hacking the F’s face. There is no fact that the Defendant spits water at hand.

2) Although the police officers clearly refused the Defendant’s demand for voluntary accompanying, they were engaged in illegal performance of official duties, such as forcing the Defendant to proceed with the Defendant without lawful arrest procedures, and the Defendant merely resists the demand, and thus, does not constitute a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (one hundred and twenty months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, observation of protection, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. Where an act of assault or intimidation was committed against multiple public officials performing the same official duties in the judgment of official authority, a multiple interference with the performance of official duties is established according to the number of public officials performing 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 in light of social norms, multiple interference with the performance of official duties is in a conceptual concurrence relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009). In full view of evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Defendant’s act constitutes a interference with the performance of official duties to police officers and EF, respectively, and it is reasonable to evaluate it as one act of assaulting the same opportunity at the same place as one act of social norms.

However, the court below held that the crime of interference with the execution of official duties by police officers E and F constitutes a simple crime, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous.