2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of the instant case, it is difficult to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone had the criminal intent to commit a false report to the Defendant at the time of reporting 112, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

The Defendant reported 112 on the date and time stated in the facts charged to the effect that the Defendant “a fluor vehicle is under drinking alcohol.”

Before 112 Declarations, the Defendant consistently argued to the effect that the driver was aware that the driver was driving a motor vehicle on a road other than the parking zone and the driver was driving a motor vehicle on a road other than the parking zone for pedestrians by committing abnormal actions.

As a result of the police's dispatch and confirmation, the vehicle was stopped in order to operate the NAS, and the vehicle is believed to be set up automatically and the vehicle system was set up around and turned on.

At the time of the police's dispatch, the driver's operation of the window was confirmed at the time of the police's moving, but it is difficult to understand whether the defendant's moving windows at the time of the police's reporting to the police or the driver's moving off from the outside can be seen as an operation of the train due to the difference between the inside and outside of the vehicle.

In addition, it is difficult to exclude the possibility of being mistaken for abnormal driving due to drinking, if the driver operates the NAS immediately before the driver completely stops the vehicle.

After the police called up on the 112 report, the defendant came to know that he made a false report after checking the driver's alcohol level and confirming that the driver was not a state of drinking.

3. As such, the facts charged of this case constitute a crime.