The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order to achieve the purpose of the offender’s act, the term “defensive means” means causing misunderstanding, misunderstanding, or sites to the other party, and using the misunderstanding, angle, or site. The other party must make a mistake or disposition accordingly, but the above crime is established.

If such an act does not reach the point of preventing or making it practically difficult, it may not be punished for interference with the performance of official duties by fraudulent means (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1554, Apr. 23, 2009, etc.). 2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: “The defendant, who was discovered to be illegal staying in the Republic of Korea and forced to leave China due to being exposed to being illegal staying in the Republic of Korea, has entered the Republic of Korea through a disguised marriage with the issuance of identification card and identification card and identification card and identification card, whose name and date of birth have been changed in China, and completed foreigner registration through a disguised marriage. On December 24, 2007, he/she submitted to the Ministry of Justice an application for permission of naturalization to the public official who prepared and received and examined the application for permission of naturalization on or around December 9, 2009, thereby hindering the performance of official duties by fraudulent means.”

In addition, according to the records, the prosecution of this case was instituted on July 29, 2016.

3. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that, as long as the Defendant submitted an application for naturalization with false facts on December 24, 2007 to the public official in charge and received it, thereby hindering the performance of official duties in connection with naturalization, interference with the performance of official duties in accordance with a deceptive scheme was committed, and as such, seven years of extinctive prescription has run from that time, and had already been completed before the instant indictment was instituted, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant.

4. However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant stated false facts.