The court below dismissed the defendant's appeal and affirmed the judgment of the first instance court which punished the defendant as an ordinary concurrence with the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means and the crime of fraud in the ordinary concurrence with the crime of fraud by recognizing that the defendant committed obstruction of the execution of the trial as a deceptive scheme and the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means and the crime of fraud, by making the defendant receive a claim for change of the name of telephone subscription right when the defendant filed a lawsuit against the non-indicted B, making the above non-indicted person's address entered in farch, and let the court deliver the summons, etc.

However, if the facts are the same as above, it shall be natural that the defendant be classified into fraud, but the fact that the defendant's address is falsely stated in the civil suit as above, and the court official served the summons, etc. on the date for pleading with a false address shall not be deemed to interfere with the court official's specific and realistic execution of duties. Thus, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means shall not be deemed to be established.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)