The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the fact that the Defendant made a false call to the 112 reporting center in relation to the obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means among the facts charged in the instant case does not lead to the obstruction of performance of official duties, since the police officer’s act itself, which was called upon according to the facts or the report, did not interfere with the Defendant

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio shall be examined ex officio.

The lower court acknowledged all of the crimes of this case as a repeated offense.

However, according to each of the facts duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for night building intrusion larceny at Busan District Court on February 22, 201, and was released on September 1, 201 and the parole period passed on September 30, 201. As such, each of the crimes of this case constitutes a repeated crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that determined the punishment of a repeated offender on the premise that all of the crimes of this case constitute a repeated offense is illegal, and thus, it cannot be maintained any longer.

However, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the grounds for appeal, it is reasonable to view that the defendant made a false report to 112 with intent to interfere with the performance of official duties, and that the police officer interfered with the performance of official duties by causing mistake, mistake, and site to the police officer due to the defendant's deceptive scheme, causing a mistake, mistake, and site to the police officer, leading the police officer to

Accordingly, the defendant's objection.