A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On June 1, 2014, around 10:38, the Defendant filed a false report on the following facts: (a) from May 31, 2014 to June 1, 2014; (b) from May 31, 2014 to June 1, 2014, on the Defendant’s cell phone, on the Defendant’s mobile phone calls to the Seoul Special Police Agency 112 center to believe it as an urgent crime report; and (c) to the police officer who received the Defendant’s report telephone; and (d) reported the Defendant’s false fact to the police officer who received the Defendant’s report phone.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the receipt of police officers' 112 criminal reports and legitimate execution of duties concerning crime prevention through fraudulent means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each E statement;

1. 112 Report records; and

1. A copy of each letter of arrest of a flagrant offender;

1. The receipt and settlement status of 112 reported cases;

1. Ratification;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on details of handling 112 Reporting Cases;

1. Article 137 of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor concerning the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [the scope of recommending punishment] from April to October (the case where the degree of deceptive scheme is minor] [the decision of sentencing] the defendant's mistake and reflects his mistake, the defendant's location is not contacted with his father, and the case was caused by telephone in 112 in order to identify his father's whereabouts, which led to the crime of this case, and the defendant was friendly with his depression and thereby caused the crime of this case several times to commit the crime of the same kind, such as interference with business, etc. In addition, the crime of this case seems not to be irrelevant to such medical history, the defendant was sealed as a public official for 21 years, and the defendant's age, character, conduct, environment, etc. is ordered as ordered.