The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Facts charged;

A. On March 21, 2014, around 23:10 on March 21, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the “E restaurant” restaurant operated by the victim D (the original judgment is indicated as “D” but appears to be a clerical error) located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) sound as a matter of calculating the drinking value; and (c) 30 minutes of decrising to the next customer by raising a disturbance.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

B. On March 21, 2014, at around 23:55, the Defendant 112 reported at the same place as Paragraph (1) and told G to the effect that he returned home to the Defendant, the Defendant she saw that he was “I am home to the Defendant,” and she saw G as follows: “I am satis, satis, satis, satis, will not be treated as a police officer, and will not be treated as a one of the satiss.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of police officers' duties.

2. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the entire facts charged of the instant case for the following reasons. A.

There is a statement in D's investigative agency as evidence that corresponds to the facts charged about interference with business.

D, however, at the court of original instance, stated in the court of original instance that “The act of making noise due to the calculation of the drinking value, and doing a behavior to avoid disturbance to the next customer was done in the same manner with the defendant, and the defendant did not act.”

Therefore, it cannot be recognized that the statement made by the investigation agency of D alone did the defendant act as stated in the facts charged.

B. As to the obstruction of performance of official duties, evidence that corresponds to the facts charged lies in G, H’s statement, and D’s investigation agency.

However, G and H's testimony is not consistent with each other with the situation where a person or defendant was in the place at the time, and is the objective witness for the obstruction of performance of official duties.