The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. On January 10, 2015, the summary of the grounds for appeal stated that the Defendant filed a report on 112 that he/she stuffs in the G restaurant operated by F by means of public telephone around January 10, 2015, and this is due to the fact that the gambling was actually set up in the above restaurant, but the lower court filed a false report on a crime that was not the Defendant.

The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the first instance court’s duly adopted and examined evidence: (i) the Defendant reported 112 as stated in the instant facts charged on January 10, 2015; (ii) as a result of the police officer’s arrival at the G restaurant operated on the same day 23:30 on the same day, the above restaurant was in operation, and there was no scambling and exceptional points; and (iii) the Defendant did not directly witness the G restaurant operated at the investigative agency, but (iv) reported 112 at the above 10-day local court’s contact with the Defendant to the effect that gambling would be conducted at the above 10-day local court; (iv) the Defendant did not actually visit the 20-day local government’s name and contact to the 10-day local government; and (v) the Defendant did not receive the above 1-day local government’s investigation from the investigative agency to the said 1-day local government’s 2-day local government.