A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

(e).

Punishment of the crime

around 00:29 on November 7, 2014, the Defendant made a false report on the carbook 112 while drinking alcohol at the Defendant’s house located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B lending 502 on November 7, 2014, and made a false report to the Defendant’s cell phone to the effect that “the friendship-gu, which was sent at the front of the front of the front time, is aware of the intention to block an important crime,” thereby making a false report to the effect that “the head of the friendship-gu, who was sent at the front of the front time, ought to be called up to the Defendant’s house.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in regard to the handling of 112 reported cases by fraudulent means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the accused in the first protocol of trial;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a detailed statement of 112 reported cases settlement;

1. Article 137 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The dismissal of prosecution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. On August 17, 2014, the summary of the facts charged, “2014No4171, the Defendant assaulted the victim, on the ground that the victim E (the age of 59) who is a security guard, was satisfing the victim’s part of the course of drinking once, and the victim’s satisfies each time every time the two satisfies of the two sats of the victim, on the ground that the Defendant was deprived of the victim’s entrance due to 302 from his/her employees’ drinking in front of the lecture branch of the Korean Racing Association, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul.

2. We examine the judgment, and the facts charged are the crimes falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent in accordance with Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.

However, according to the records, the victim can recognize the withdrawal of his/her wish to punish the defendant on January 21, 2015, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted.

Therefore, the prosecution against the above facts charged is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The reasons for sentencing [the scope of recommendations].