A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine, inasmuch as: (a) although the reported content of the Defendant 112 was somewhat exaggerated, it did not amount to a deceptive scheme, which constitutes a constituent element of the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties by deceptive means; and (b) the police officer did not make a mistake, mistake, or cause a site due to the Defendant’s report; and (c) the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties by deceptive means was not established.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court’s determination on the assertion of fact: (i) the Defendant was called to the reported center 9 times or 112 prior to the instant case without any particular report; (ii) the Defendant was refusing to send out and return home on the road at the time; (iii) the Defendant’s report on the simple request for dispatch alone was anticipated that police officers would no longer be dispatched; and (iv) the above report could not be easily treated as a police officer by a mere false report; (v) the Defendant’s false report was sent to the police officer due to the Defendant’s false report; and (v) the Defendant’s act of using the police officer’s attitude to actively protect the Defendant’s body by taking account of the following factors: (i) the police officer’s personal information, such as his/her refusal to send out and return home on the road; and (ii) the Defendant’s act of using the police officer’s attitude to actively protect the Defendant’s life by taking account of the following factors.