The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not cause any disturbance under the influence of alcohol.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant on the ground of fabricated evidence, in particular video CDs, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed in the judgment records and pleadings, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.

On January 22, 2016, around 21:00, the Defendant laid one beer and traw at the main point of the trade name “G” located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul. The defect that the main place of business or employees (hereinafter “main place”) did not sell one traw, and the Defendant and the main place of business were punished for vision.

Accordingly, the main point was reported to the police and called the police, and the police D and E requested that the defendant be released from the main point of view. The police officer took the defendant out of the main place and recommended him to return home.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without returning home and asked the police officer who requested the withdrawal and return home according to the police box D, continued to inquire of the police officer who requested the withdrawal and return home according to the police officer D, such as whether he is a person who has reported his identity, and what is the reason for the report, committed an act, such as committing considerable acts like the entries in the judgment of the court below.

피고인은 당시 술에 취한 상태가 아니었다고 주장하나, 피고인이 원심에서 제출한 2016. 3. 7.자 답변서에 위 주점에 들어가기 전에 소주 약 반병을 마셨다고 스스로 기재한 점(공판기록 제12면), 경찰관 D은 원심법정에서 ‘당시 피고인이 얼굴이 빨갰고 눈이 충혈되어 있었으며 가까이 갔을 때 술 냄새가 났다’, ‘피고인이 당시 음주감지기를 불었을 때 알코올 성분이 감지될 경우에만 켜지는 빨간 불이 들어왔다’고 진술한 점,...