The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the statements made by E at an investigative agency, some of the statements made at the court of the original trial, witness H and I, etc., the defendant can be found to have committed an act of disturbing drinking under the influence of alcohol as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case shall not be allowed to slickly slickly by very rough words or conducts, or to allow any third person under the influence of alcohol, at a place where many people gather or frequent, such as a public hall, theater, restaurant, etc., or on a train, motor vehicle, ship carrying many people.

Nevertheless, on June 10, 2016, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the entrance of a D cafeteria located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Masan-si, and then was smoking at that place.

In order to put tobacco to E with a different kind of tobacco, but in order to cause tobacco not to be smoked, there was an act of disturbing drinking by very rough or disorderly words and actions, such as putting his hand and trees, while putting in a bath, such as tobacco delivery Ra and fling.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined, the court below held that the defendant was in dispute between the defendant and E, but considering the fact that E did not have any disturbance or disturbance at the entrance of the D cafeteria at the court of the court below, the above evidence alone is sufficient to consider that the defendant committed an act of drinking disturbance, etc. under Article 3 (1) 20 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, i.e., an act of drinking disturbance, etc. under the influence of rough words or behavior, or an act of drinking alcohol under the influence of alcohol.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(c)

1) The appeal court under the current Criminal Procedure Act is based on the inner part, but the ex post facto core elements are also the so-called ex post facto core review.