The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles: (a) Even if a suspect makes a false statement or submits false evidence in the course of investigation into him/her, it cannot be punished as obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means; and (b) even at the end of the suspect interrogation protocol, it is stated in the same text that “no error, increase or decrease, or change is made as stated in the above protocol to be perused by a person who has made a statement; (c) so that a suspect may sign it without seal after signing it; (d) if the suspect’s signature of the suspect interrogation protocol is written in another person’s name, it cannot be punished as forgery of private documents and its uttering; and (c) if the defendant written another person’s name in his/her statement in his/her statement in his/her statement in his/her statement, it cannot be punished as the same crime; and (c) it cannot be viewed as an abuse of his/her right of defense; and (c) it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to forgery of private documents, which are contrary to the principle of prohibition of self-donation, thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment.

B. The lower court’s punishment of mistake of facts (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) First, in light of the legal principles as to the driver's column of the report on the statement of the status of the driver, the name, resident registration number, date and time of detection of the upper part of the report, and the date and time of measurement, as the police officer who discovered the 11th of the investigation record, reported to the chief of the police station who discovered the 11th of the 11th of the report.