The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that the defendant submitted a letter of complaint to the effect that the police officer B did flat the defendant's flat and assaulted the defendant's left flat at the defendant's left flat.

However, the Defendant, upon receipt of the report on March 20, 2017, taken fats from the police officer B, who called up on March 20, 2017, and fell against the Defendant’s threshold in the process of having fatbling B and ske the Defendant.

Therefore, the contents of the complaint submitted by the defendant are merely an exaggeration of the circumstance where the defendant was assaulted by B, and it cannot be viewed as false.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on a different premise. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court is sufficiently recognized as having failed to file a false complaint with the investigative agency as stated in the instant facts charged, even though the Defendant did not have been assaulted by B on March 20, 2017.

Therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as pointed out by the defendant.

① At the investigation agency and court of the Defendant’s obstruction of performance of official duties, the investigation agency and court of this case, and the court of the same case, the following facts are consistent and concrete: “The Defendant, upon receiving 112 reports, sent to the scene and made it impossible to photograph the body of the Defendant without any other person’s permission. The Defendant, who spawned on one’s own boat, made an assault, and spawn on one’s own boat, etc., and he did not sat down