The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 20,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) and the fact that the nature of the instant crime is inferior, and the necessity of strict punishment for the crime interfering with the performance of official duties, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court (amounting to KRW 20 million) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Where an act of violence or intimidation was committed against multiple public officials performing the same official duties, 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 violence or intimidation was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and is evaluated as one act under the social concept, the interference with the performance of official duties by multiple persons is in an ordinary competition relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009, etc.). B. B. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the court below duly adopted and investigated evidence reveals the following facts: according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant, as stated in the facts of the judgment of the court below, did not comply with the slope demand of E, and did not follow the driving side of the above low-income motor vehicle, which is a dangerous object, and started fast to the right-hand side of the vehicle, and continued to threaten the above escape from the front road.

In full view of the above facts, 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. As such, the crime of obstructing the performance of special official duties to slope E and Inspector F is in a commercial concurrence relationship as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of crimes by omitting the application of Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act with regard to the commercial concurrence in the application of the statutes, and such errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine.