All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The crime of interference with the execution of public services by a deceptive scheme shall be established in cases where the other party misleads the other party, knowss the land, and makes the other party do any wrong act or disposition using the land, thereby obstructing the specific and realistic execution of duties of the public official;

Therefore, in the case of “report” the effect of which is completed by unilateral notification to the administrative agency, the reporter stated false facts in the report or submitted false explanatory materials.

Even if so, the public official in charge was interfered with the specific and practical performance of his duties.

Unless there exist special circumstances, such report cannot be deemed to constitute a crime of interference with the performance of official duties by fraudulent means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do7034, Sept. 8, 2011). However, in cases where an administrative agency examines whether to grant authorization or permission upon application or determines whether to accept an application only when meeting certain qualifications, etc. upon receipt of an application, unlike the above “report”, if the applicant or applicant sufficiently examines the applicant’s false explanatory materials, etc. submitted by the public official in charge, but fails to discover such false explanatory materials, and thereby causes a disposition or acceptance of the application, it constitutes a crime of interference with the performance of official duties by fraudulent means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do2064, Sept. 4, 2002; 2006Do126, Feb. 26, 2009).