The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence, such as CCTV images, arrest letters of flagrant offenders, the circumstantial statement of a reader, on-site photographs, etc., it is acknowledged that the Defendant committed an act of disturbance by uttering or uttering very rough words and actions within the o zone.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On October 4, 2018, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case stated that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, Yansan-si, and the Ansan-gu Police Station “Yansan-si,” and that “A police officer would have been on the day. I would have been on the day. I would have been on the day. I would have been on the day.” Even though the police officer in the police box notified the Defendant that he could be punished at the time when he would continue the act of revocation of the principal in the prosecution while giving the Defendant the procedures for filing a complaint and the instructions on hospital medical treatment, the Defendant, for about three hours, committed an act of interference with the revocation of the principal within the public office.”

B. The judgment of the court below held that the police interrogation protocol of the defendant against the defendant cannot be admitted as evidence because it denies its contents, and according to CCTV images taken by the defendant at the time, it cannot be seen as exercising a tangible power, such as cutting down the flag in the earth room or attempting to physically contact the police officer. However, while staying in the two sons and the earth room, it seems that the defendant gets at the seat of the police officer, standing out the door, siting on the front seat, standing out the front seat, or taking a cell phone, and it is difficult to view that the defendant was arrested in a flagrant offender or in the process immediately before he was arrested as a flagrant offender, and therefore, the remaining part submitted by the prosecutor is presented by the prosecutor.