The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles), the police officer F, H’s legal statement, the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant and E by the prosecution, and the written statement of C, the defendant interfered with the operation of the victim C’s restaurant by force with E.

2. Determination

A. On December 28, 2017, the Defendant, at around 22:10 on December 28, 2017, performed drinking together with D’s “D,” which was operated by the victim C (S) in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and was under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant was able to avoid disturbance due to the following: (a) the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, carried the beer’s disease, alcohol, etc. on the table, shick, etc. on the table, hump, hump, hump, and hump; (b) the Defendant humpeded the beer, hump, hump, hump, and hump; and (c) the Defendant humpeded the victim with the victim’s disease.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with E, interfered with the victim's restaurant operation for about one hour and 30 minutes by force.

B. The lower court determined that: (a) the police officer prepared a statement that corresponds to the facts charged, namely, the following circumstances: (b) C/E’s testimony and records; (c) the police officer attended the court of the lower court as a witness; (d) E was the same as passing through a voice while the studio is closed; and (e) E took a warning of the Defendant at the time of opening a door; and (e) E was able to take a bath or talk with the principal on one occasion; (c) the Defendant made a statement that corresponds to the Defendant’s assertion; (d) the written statement does not clearly specify the subject of the lawsuit at the time; and (e) it is difficult for the lower court to believe that the part inconsistent with C’s legal statement and witness F’s partial statement contradictory to the above written statement, and (e) the part of the written statement written by the police officer, which was written by C, was written by C, the original person of the lower court.