The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means as stated in the [Attachment 2-4] Nos. 2-4 of the judgment of the court below, the defendant called to the 112 Report Center to the effect that he was urged to send or resist the police officer as soon as possible by telephone to the 112 Report Center, and there was no false report.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, even if not, on the one hand.

2. Determination

A. The court below asserted that the following circumstances can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the defendant called the 112 reporting center at the 112 reporting center as shown in this part of the facts charged, and reported three times that "the defendant interfered with his business; (ii) he was called upon upon the defendant's report; (iii) K was present at the court below as a witness and testified that "the defendant was dispatched to the reporting center; (iv) the defendant was absent from the site and called for a day different from the details of the report; (v) there was no circumstance to suspect credibility of the testimony; and (iii) the defendant called "the head of the Busan Local Police Agency should be interfered with business"; and (v) according to the file in which the voice of the defendant's voice attached to the results of inquiry by the Commissioner of the Busan Local Police Agency, which was presented as evidence, the defendant argued that the defendant called the report center for the purpose of solving the relation between the defendant and the defendant's personal defendant.