The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 3.6 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misunderstanding of the legal doctrine that the Defendant reported that he was “a person who has been sentenced to punishment” constitutes an act of “a false report to a public official on an unregistered crime or a disaster” under Article 3(3)2 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (three million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. In the trial of the court, the prosecutor of the judgment ex officio: “Interference with the execution of a deceptive scheme (the name of the conjunctive crime: Violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act);” Article 137 of the Criminal Act (Article 3(2)3 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act): and Article 137 of the Criminal Act (Article 3 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act: Preliminaryly Applicable Act); and Article 3(2)3 of the facts charged are as follows: “The facts under the influence of alcohol at the customers’ parking lot of the Dong market located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of a police officer’s duties concerning the prevention and treatment of fraudulent petitions, by having a police officer believe it to the truth at the above site (Article 42 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act).”

/ Preliminary facts charged by the Defendant: on April 18, 2016, the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the customers' parking lot of the Dong-dong market located in the Yong-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Seowon-si, Seowon-si, Seowon-si, the Defendant interfered with the duties of police officers performing official duties by filing a 112 declaration (No. 6942) stating that the Defendant had a person who received a penalty by means of his Handphone (G) even though he did not have a twice of a crime, etc.

"Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment" was filed, and this Court permitted it, and the subject of the adjudication was changed.

As examined below, the changed primary charges are found guilty, and this part and the judgment of the court below are guilty.