beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by both medical care and custody applicants and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and the misunderstanding of the medical care and custody applicant (hereinafter “Defendant”) merely filed a false report under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute a deceptive scheme, and the Defendant’s false report interfered with the execution of specific official duties due to the Defendant’s false report.
shall not be deemed to exist.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and found the facts charged.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.
B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination on the part of the case of the defendant
A. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is based on a crime committed when the obstruction of the performance of official duties by a deceptive scheme under Article 137 of the Criminal Act is established when the other party’s mistake, mistake, or site is caused, and the other party commits a wrong act or disposition by using the deceptive scheme, thereby obstructing the specific and realistic performance of duties of a public official. If a false report as prescribed in Article 3(3)2 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act was made by a public official, who is the other party, was mistaken for the occurrence of a crime, and the other public official’s response was made during the withdrawal of response measures that would not have been made if the public official had been aware of such circumstances, thereby hindering the specific and realistic performance of official duties and obstructing the performance of official duties by a deceptive scheme (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do958, Oct. 13, 2016). According to the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the lower court and this court, the Defendant was present at the police station on October 18, 2017.