Therefore, although the above act by the defendant should be deemed to constitute a force as prescribed by the crime of interference with the duties under the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged is erroneous

2. Determination:

A. On January 23, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 16:15 on January 23, 2017, at “A” restaurant managed by the Victim D in Young-gu, Young-si, Suwon-si, which is managed by the Victim D; and (b) without any reason, the Defendant’s summary of the facts charged is “a female customer E and F”; (c)

Duchch fluor;

In the bit of bitbit of bit of bit of bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit

B. The lower court determined: ① the Defendant, while being under significant influence of alcohol at the time, viewed that he continued to drink E, she was seated on the table of the above restaurant, and her snow was boomed, and that she was “Baman,” and that he was asked from the employees of the above restaurant, who received a claim from E, to refrain from doing the above action; however, the Defendant was requested to do so.

The expression "" is one time, talking in Japanese language, etc. <2> The Defendant only engaged in the above actions, and the Defendant appears not to have avoided disturbance, such as committing an act threatening to the victims or customers or committing sound, and ③ the above restaurant is operated due to the Defendant's behavior.