The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding) notified the police officer that the police officer was called out by making a false report to 112, and that the police officer dispatched to the site could be punished by a false report as it constitutes a false report. Accordingly, the defendant's act constitutes a nearby disturbance under Article 3 (1) 21 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act. However, the court below judged that the defendant's act of speaking in large interest constitutes a crime of disturbance in neighboring areas under Article 3 (1) 21 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and sentenced the police officer not guilty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. On May 10, 2018, the Defendant left the area of the facts charged, and slickly slicked the surrounding areas, on the ground that the Defendant, who was in the deep control of the Defendant, who was paying a disturbance in the vicinity of the viewing in Bupyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, is going against the police assigned for viewing, who was in the deep control of the Defendant who was in the deep control of the Defendant, in the vicinity of the viewing.

B. The lower court acknowledged the facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, and stated to the effect that the Defendant’s speech was raised with the voice similar to that of the police, namely, the following circumstances revealed in the judgment, and that the Defendant’s speech was made at a large amount of time from 12:16:4 to 12:17:07, and the time of leaving the police is about about 22 seconds, again about 12:17:43 to 12:18:00, and the Defendant did not file a civil petition from the neighbors to 12:17:18:00; the Defendant did not leave the police station for a large amount of time; the Defendant was investigated at the police station and stated to the effect that “the Defendant was unable to report the Defendant’s voice to the police station, and thus, the Defendant’s speech to the large amount of time and the overall period of time did not extend to the police.”