The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserts that, among the instant charges, the crime of attempted fraud was committed on November 10, 2018, the crime of attempted fraud was not committed since the Defendant merely went to the effect that another person drinks alcoholic beverages. As such, there was no intention to obtain fraud. As to the attempted fraud by December 22, 2018, the Defendant paid the drinking value in cash, which was not settled by the stolen physical card, unless it was settled by the stolen physical card.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. Even if the facts charged in the instant case were to be found guilty, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On November 10, 2018, when considering the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant first acknowledged the facts charged at the court below, and consented to the interrogation protocol prepared by a judicial police officer (30-37 pages of the evidence No. 7046 of 2019). Even if the defendant reverses it at the appellate court, the admissibility of the above interrogation protocol is maintained. However, according to the above interrogation protocol, it is recognized that the defendant stated in the investigative agency to the effect that "the defendant would pay the value of self-defense and it is between other persons, and thus there is no accomplice's fault." Thus, it can be acknowledged that the defendant had the intent to acquire the suspect at the time of the crime of this case.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

Next, as to the attempted fraud of December 22, 2018, the crime of fraud has already been established at the time when the defendant presented the victim's check as if he was his own card, and even if the defendant paid the drinking value in cash thereafter, it cannot affect the nature of the crime of fraud that has already been established. Thus, this part of this part of the defendant's above is just because it cannot affect the nature of the crime of fraud that has already been established.