The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although some statements made by D in the court below's decision on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor are consistent with the facts charged of this case, there is credibility, and the conditions before and after the crime that can be confirmed through investigation reports, etc. prepared by police officers dispatched to the site are consistent with the above part of the above statements, the court below rejected them and sentenced the defendant not guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. On February 14, 2019, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) the Defendant called “C” to the Do community service center in Busan, the head of which was to provide counseling related to the lease of electricity around 12:00; and (b) the Defendant continued to talk with “C,” and had approximately one-hour talks about political, religious, etc., and interfered with and continuously called “C.”

After that, whether there is any person who visits the Dong office on the same day due to the reason that he/she does not change another employee in the community service center, and makes a false statement.

It was difficult to say that “I have continued to retire”, “I have made a political leave, insulting speech, I have received a report to the police officer, who has called for, and have received the report, I have been able to do so, and “I have been able to do so,” and “I have been able to do so,” and there has been a disturbance at approximately 20 minutes at a large-scale government office in the state of drinking.

B. The lower court’s determination: (a) stated to the purport that no witness was presented as the employee C of the B community service center designated as the victim was present at the time of the lower court’s trial because it was not at the scene “at the court below’s trial; and (b) made

D) The fact that the defendant was found in the court of original instance that the defendant's complaint was found in the court of original instance, but his desire was the same as that of the defendant's complaint, and that of the complaint was a large voice, and the police officer had been at the scene after the locking.

Most employees at the time did not actively respond to their own duties.

The statement at the police is that the police officer in charge knows the thickness.