A. Paragraph 1 of the holding (Violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act) does not misrepresent the Defendant as a police officer’s status.

B. Article 2(2) of the judgment of the court below does not have a public performance because the defendant did not have a state that many and unspecified persons could recognize when she takes a bath for the victim.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly examined by the court below under Paragraph 1 (Violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act) of the judgment, the fact that the defendant misrepresented a police officer by responding to the question of the police officer called “Manbday” is sufficiently recognized.

B. In full view of the evidence duly examined by the court below, it is reasonable to see that the place where the defendant s/he s/ she s/he s/ she s/he s/ she s/he s/ she s/ she s/ she

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals are without merit.