The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) of the judgment of the court below (misunderstanding of facts) against the guilty part of the defendant (the charge of obstructing the performance of official duties by deceptive means from around September 14:27, 2017 to around 14:52). The police officers at the time are already dispatched to the defendant upon receipt of a report at the A.M. (related to the portion of innocence among the judgment below), and at this time, the police officers in charge are aware that the defendant's report is different from the actual ones of the defendant's report. Thus, even if the police officers in charge were dispatched to the P.M. by the defendant's report on the same day, the defendant interfered with the performance of duties by

Although the court below did not regard this part of the facts charged, it sentenced him guilty, and the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Of the lower judgment, the part of the lower judgment that was acquitted (which interferes with the performance of official duties by fraudulent means from September 11, 2017 to November 36 of the same day) was not guilty. In a case where the police officers were dispatched due to the Defendant’s three times of false reports, the receipt and handling of reports and patrols were interfered with specific and realistic 112 reports and patrols.

Although it could be seen, the lower court rendered a judgment not guilty of this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “defluence in the performance of official duties in a deceptive scheme,” thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (five months of imprisonment) is too heavy or (the defendant) and hulled (the prosecutor).

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. We examine the Defendant’s assertion (misunderstanding of facts). The following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant’s false reports (i.e., (ii) around September 14:45 and around 14:50 on September 9, 2017, 112 reported COE0 on the grounds that the lower court appropriately explained, based on various evidences duly admitted by the lower court and the lower court, and (iii) around September 14:5 and 14:50 on September 9, 2017: