The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act of sitting together with E on the day of the appeal constitutes an entertainment for the purpose of profit-making which is punished by the Food Sanitation Act in light of the defendant's voluntary affiliation with E and drinking in light of the circumstances. However, since the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Food Sanitation Act and by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. In light of the records of this case, the court below rejected the credibility of the E statement that conforms to the facts charged of this case based on the circumstances set forth in its reasoning, and judged that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of this case, just and just, and there is no illegality of mistake of facts alleged by the prosecutor.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant is recognized as having 200 marries E and beer on the day of the instant case.

그러나 같은 증거들에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음의 사정들, 즉 ① E의 원심 증언에 의하더라도, 사건 당일 피고인이 술을 마신 것은 E이 요청해서 마신 것이지 피고인이 처음부터 동석을 하여 피고인과 술을 마셨던 것은 아니었던 점, ② 피고인은 E이 주점 내에 있을 때 주점 밖으로 나와 가게 옆 편의점을 방문하였고, 거기에서 편의점 주인 F에게 “짓궂은 손님인데 좀 이상하다, 술이 취했는데 짓궂게 군다, 그래서 담배 사러 나온다는 핑계로 나왔다”고 말하여 당시 E과의 동석을 스스로 거부하였던 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 피고인이 위와 같이 피고인이 맥주 2잔을 마시는 대가로 E으로부터 주류 대금 외의 다른 돈은...