Legal principles: In a case where the defendant filed a report on the obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means three times or more, and the police officer called out after receiving a report, it cannot be deemed that it was a promotion of the execution of official duties, but it was a interference with the execution of official duties.

The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means may not be established unless there is any evidence to prove that the report has been interfered with other cases or investigation activities.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of obstruction of performance of official duties.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means under Article 137 of the Criminal Act, which is established when the mistake, mistake, or site of the other party is caused, and the other party commits a wrong act or disposition by using the deceptive scheme, thereby obstructing the specific and practical performance of official duties of the public official, is the national function itself protected by the law.

If the act of false report causes the misunderstanding that a public official, who is the other party, caused the crime, and thereby the public official withdraws the response measures that would not have been known of such circumstances, then the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means is committed by interfering with the execution of specific and realistic official duties.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9958, Oct. 13, 2016). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the Defendant is related to this part of the crime.