The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts1) The Defendant did not assault the police officer, and the police officer submitted only voice recordings without submitting a video on the ground that it is not good to the quality even after all the arrest process was taken, so if confirming images, the Defendant could confirm that the Defendant did not assault the police officer. Even if the Defendant committed an assault against the police officer, this constitutes a justifiable act in the process of resisting illegal arrest of the police officer, and thus, the Defendant does not constitute the crime of injury and obstruction of performance of official duties. 2) The Defendant was aware of his intent and ability to pay the price at the time of receiving the instant alcohol and the alcohol, and thus, is not established a crime of fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The court below's judgment 1) 1 on the point of injury and obstruction of the performance of official duties is sufficiently recognized according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, that the defendant committed an assault to F during the course of moving to and leaving the patrol room, and according to the evidence above, the defendant clearly expresses that he would not pay the drinking value or pay the drinking value even though the police was urged to return home while the police was called to the police after receiving the report 112, and the police was urged to do so. Even though the police demanded to present his identification card to the defendant and notified that he could be arrested as a flagrant offender without disclosing his personal information, the defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender by completely refusing to present his identification card. According to the above facts of recognition, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that the police did not comply with due process and requirements for arresting a flagrant offender in the course of arresting the defendant as an offender in the act of fraud.