The defendant shall be innocent.

The Defendant, from September 16, 2017 to September 18:58 of the same day, was a mobile phone from the Defendant’s home of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C to the 18:58 day of the same day, to the cell phone, and the Defendant’s cell phone “I are not able to know the whereabouts of his/her wife who lived with the denied.”

The report 112 reported 17 times to the effect that it may kill a child by kidnapping it, and reported 27 times in total, such as 17 times and 10 times in general telephone numbers of the Seoul Western Police Station D District, Gangnam Police Station D, Seoul.

However, in fact, the defendant was in a situation where the defendant's wife was faced with his house by leaving his family members of the city with his happiness, and his child was safe situation and the defendant was well aware of such situation.

The Defendant, as such, interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention of crimes, such as police officers, E, F, etc. belonging to the Seoul Regional Police Agency D police station, and the maintenance of order, by which the name of the Seoul Regional Police Agency 112 was unknown through a deceptive scheme.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, such as the investigation report (11, 12 pages) and the notification of the department related to the report of the case 112, the Defendant 17:47:50 on September 16, 2017 17 17:112, and the Defendant cannot identify the whereabouts of 5 murdered son and her own.

shall be deemed to be her or her or her or her or her wife.

As such, the fact that the Defendant’s request for “a request for confirmation” was made, and the Defendant’s request was confirmed by phone call from the Defendant to the Defendant’s denying Party G. G provided that “A person who takes a bath and fright while in the state of drinking is at a safe place along with his/her wife, who is in danger of being damaged by his/her wife, and who does not want his/her body, and who does not want his/her phone call with the Defendant.” The Defendant can acknowledge the fact that the Defendant received the content of the phone call.

However, such circumstance alone alone makes the Defendant’s report false

(2).