The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. As to the fraud, the Defendant did not have the intent of defraudation, since he was in possession of the physical card at the time of the instant case and was aware that the limit on the use of the card was sufficient to pay the drinking value, etc.

B. As to obstructing the performance of official duties, the Defendant did not assault police officers, as stated in the instant facts charged.

2) Police officers attempted to illegally arrest the defendant without unilaterally assault the defendant, and without notifying the reason for arrest, the right to appoint a defense counsel, etc. The acts of the defendant asserted this constitutes legitimate defense.

2. Determination

A. 1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant was drinking with beer and beer in a restaurant operated by the victim D, ② was the victim’s “bat before paying the price,” ② was the victim’s “catching the amount of food,” and the Defendant was the victim’s “catching the amount of credit,” and the Defendant was the victim’s “catching the amount of credit,” and the Defendant was the victim’s “catching the amount of credit,” but the Defendant did not call, but did not call the victim, ③ was the Defendant intended to calculate the amount of credit with the body card from the beginning, ③ was the victim’s attempt to discover the body card and calculated the amount of credit with the victim’s “catching the amount of credit with the Defendant’s name,” ④ was the victim’s attempt to pay the amount of credit with the Defendant’s name at the time of the Defendant’s arrest.