The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The statute of limitations on the charge of obstructing the Defendant’s performance of official duties in the instant deceptive scheme ought to be deemed to run from December 9, 2009, where the Defendant acquired nationality.

Nevertheless, the lower court, on December 24, 2007, deemed that the obstruction of the Defendant’s execution of official duties in the instant fraudulent scheme led to the occurrence and termination of the period of the statute of limitations, and that the statute of limitations has already expired due to the progress of the public prosecution from that time.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. If it is clear that the defendant's act of deceptive means causes interference with the performance of official duties concerning naturalization, the reason that the defendant's application for naturalization was not obtained cannot affect the conclusion of the crime of interference with the performance of official duties by deceptive means (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14696 Decided April 28, 201). In light of the above legal principles, inasmuch as the defendant submitted and received an application for naturalization with false facts to the public official in charge, thereby obstructing the performance of official duties concerning naturalization, the crime of interference with the execution of official duties in the instant deceptive scheme at that time shall be deemed to have already reached the number and termination of the crime, and thereafter, the reason that the defendant's application for naturalization was not obtained later shall be deemed to have been a situation after the completion of the crime.

In the same purport, the statute of limitations for the crime of obstructing the execution of public duties by fraudulent means of this case has expired.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is correct, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles

subsection (b) of this section.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit.