The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the obstruction of the performance of official duties by deceptive means around July 6, 2017, on which the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty, the crime of interference with the performance of official duties by deceptive means does not necessarily require that the outcome of interference with the performance of duties does not necessarily result in reality.

Therefore, inasmuch as the Defendant submitted to the court the withdrawal of complaint under the name of G forged while the Defendant was in violation of the Labor Standards Act due to the Defendant’s failure to pay wages to G, and the copy of G’s resident registration certificate, even if so, the Defendant was convicted of the

Even if the specific execution of criminal justice procedure is suspended or difficult, it constitutes a crime of interference with the execution of fraudulent means's official duties.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the premise that the obstruction of the performance of official duties by a deceptive scheme is established only when the other party commits a wrong act or disposition with a deceptive scheme.

The Defendant: (a) was found to have forged the withdrawal of a complaint in the name of G, and submitted to the competent division along with a copy of the resident registration certificate of G to obtain a judgment dismissing the public prosecution; (b) but, inasmuch as the Defendant found that the said division did not confirm it to G and did not prepare the withdrawal of the complaint, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act did not interfere with, or making it practically difficult to, the full bench.

The above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

B. In comparison with the lower court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, any condition of sentencing at the trial.