The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged, despite the fact that the defendant could have prevented police officers from performing their legitimate duties by making a false report 27 times as stated in the facts charged in the instant case. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on facts against the defendant.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor, in the trial of the court, maintained the facts charged of obstruction of the performance of official duties by deceptive means as the primary facts charged, and applied for changes in the indictment adding the name of the crime to "violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act", "Article 3 (3) 2 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act", "Article 3 (3) 2 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act", as stated in the facts charged under the conjunctive facts charged, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court.

However, as seen below, inasmuch as this court rendered a not guilty verdict of the primary facts charged and convicted of the conjunctive facts charged, the judgment of the court below that only the primary facts charged can no longer be maintained.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts about the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even if there is such ground for ex officio reversal.

3. Determination of misconception of facts by the prosecutor on the primary facts charged

A. On September 16, 2017, from around 17:48 to 18:58 the same day, the Defendant filed a false report on a total of 27 occasions, including: (a) 112 reporting to the effect that “the whereabouts of his/her father and mother cannot be known because it is good that he/she would be able to die because he/she could die by kidnapping son; and (b) 10 times of general telephone numbers of the D District of the Seoul Gangseo-gu Police Station D District; and (c) a total of 27 times of reporting.

However, facts, the defendant, however, makes a flat speech.