The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of interference with the performance of official duties in a deceptive scheme and the crime of false accusation are committed on the basis of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant repeatedly filed a false report for personal purposes for the purpose of causing the waste of police force; (b) the reported persons caused the risk of being subject to unfair criminal punishment; and (c) the fact that the nature of the crime is very poor is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the facts that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, the court below did not punish the defendant under the agreement between the defendant and the victim G of the crime of destruction of property, obstruction of business and intrusion of structure and the defendant. With respect to the crime of interference with the execution of deceptive measures, the defendant deposited 1.5 million won in the court of the first instance with the Republic of Korea (the police station in Chang Chang, the High Police Station, the H district police station in Gwangju, and the Gwangju Western Police Station) as a person who was ordered to deposit 1.5 million won in the first place. The defendant was punished by a fine of KRW 500,000 against the defendant, and the defendant did not have any other criminal record in addition to the punishment of a fine of KRW 50,000 for the crimes of this case around 200, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, relationship with victims, motive and means of each crime of this case, the motive and result of each crime, and other circumstances after the crime, the defendant's argument and the records are too reasonable.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is with merit, and it is again decided as follows.

【Grounds for a new judgment】 The facts constituting an offense and summary of evidence recognized by the court are identical to the facts constituting an offense and summary of evidence, and thus, the gist of evidence is identical to each of the corresponding columns of the judgment below. Therefore, Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act