Hello. I am Attorney Lee Young-kyung from Cheongchul Law Firm.

Today, I would like to introduce an important ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the legal responsibility for false 112 reports. This ruling is significant in that it clearly established that in the case of false reports requiring emergency police response, individuals can face charges not only for minor offenses but also for obstruction of justice.

I. Overview of the Case

1. Progress of the Case

The specific progress of this case is as follows:

2. Uniqueness of the Case

The uniqueness of this case lies in the fact that the report was not a simple crime but a sexual crime requiring urgent response. According to the rules for operating the 112 integrated situation room and handling reports, such reports are classified as "Code 1 reports" and treated as emergency reports requiring immediate response. In fact, police arrived on the scene within 4 minutes of the report and deployed 6 patrol cars, reflecting a large-scale police response.

II. Supreme Court's Judgment

1. Distinction Between Violation of Minor Offenses Act and Obstruction of Justice

The Supreme Court first made a clear distinction regarding the legal nature of the two offenses:

"The crime of violation of minor offenses law due to false reporting as defined in Article 3, Section 3, Subsection 2 of the Minor Offenses Act occurs when there is 'false reporting of non-existent crimes or disaster facts to a public officer,' whereas the crime of obstruction of justice defined in Article 137 of the Penal Code occurs when one causes misunderstanding, confusion, or mistake in the other party through deception, which leads them to carry out incorrect actions or decisions, thereby obstructing the concrete and realistic execution of duties by public officials."

2. Distinction and Uniqueness of Police Duties

The Supreme Court stated regarding police duties, "The duties of a police officer include the protection of citizens' lives, bodies, and property, prevention of crime, protection of crime victims, and maintaining public safety and order. These duties are distinct from those performed by police officers as investigative bodies in the realm of criminal investigations." indicating a differentiation between duties related to crime investigation and those concerning order maintenance.

3. Judgment on the Establishment of Obstruction of Justice

The Supreme Court determined in this case regarding obstruction of justice, "The defendant, by reporting to 112 as if they had been the victim of a sexual crime, caused the police officer receiving the report to mistakenly believe that an urgent situation requiring immediate response had occurred, which led the police to immediately respond to the scene, search the surrounding area, and take measures to protect the victim, actions that would not have been taken had they known it was a false report." Furthermore, the Supreme Court judged that such actions "interfered with the police officers' specific duties related to the handling of 112 reports, crime prevention, and victim protection through deception."

III. Significance of the Judgment and Practical Implications

This ruling carries significant implications:

First, it clarified that the legal responsibility for false 112 reports may extend beyond mere minor offenses.

Second, it demonstrates that particularly in cases of false reports of serious crimes requiring emergency response, the illegality may be assessed more severely.

Third, it highlights the legal distinction between false statements during the investigative process and false reports requiring emergency response.

Cheongchul Law Firm possesses substantial experience and expertise in criminal cases. If you are contemplating a related case, please feel free to contact us.

Cheongchul Law Firm will be your strong legal partner. If you need to consult with an attorney, please contact us right now.