The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the court below which acquitted the defendant on the grounds that there was no proof of facts constituting a crime, or that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though it is reasonable to view that the defendant had abused language to the employee and let the customer who had been living there.

2. Determination

A. According to the witness F, witness D’s legal statement, and CCTV, the court below’s judgment held that the defendant made the above remarks at the victim’s main point on the ground that the defendant did not twitt to an employee, and that the defendant made a conflict with the next customer, and that the team of the other customer during the twitt dispute was found to have been the above main point. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence are as follows: (i) the time when the defendant arrived at the above main point at around 21:25, namely, around 23:56, around 23:59, it is difficult to view that the time when the defendant made a conflict with the employee and the guest, as above, was about five minutes from around 23:56; (ii) it was difficult to view that the other customer did not leave the main point prior to the original plan due to the defendant’s disturbance; and (iii) it was difficult to view that there was no other evidence to prove that the defendant's act was against the police duty before the victim’s injury.

B. The “defluence” of the crime of interference with business in the judgment of the political party is all the forces capable of suppressing and mixing human free will.