The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

, however, this shall not apply to the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable as the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is unhued.

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

In cases where violence and threat is committed against multiple public officials performing the same official duties, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are established according to the number of public officials performing official duties. In cases where the above assault and threat were committed at the same place with the same opportunity, and it is evaluated as one act under the social concept, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are crimes of mutual concurrence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.) Therefore, based on the above legal principle, G and H, a police officer, were in the process of reporting and executing the duties of maintaining order after receiving 112 reports, based on the records of this case, based on the above legal principle, and G and H, a police officer, were in the same place, and the defendant committed an assault against the above police officers at the same place. As such, it is reasonable to evaluate the act of assault committed in the same opportunity at the same place as one act in light of social concept. Thus, each crime of obstruction of performance of official duties against G and H is in a relationship of commercial concurrence as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the court below omitted the application of Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act with respect to commercial concurrence in the applicable provisions of law. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.

Criminal facts

this Court recognizes the substance of the evidence and the summary thereof.