The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. As to the part on the charge of mistake of facts in the crime of fraud No. 3, the Defendant was aware of the fact that he lost a wall after completing meal, and there was no intention to obtain alcohol and food cost from the beginning.

B. Determination of the lower court among the sentencing departments: 8 months of imprisonment;

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this case, namely, ① the Defendant received a request for payment of food price from the victim at the time of this case, ③ did not comply with the request, ② the Defendant was prevented from suffering from the victim (Evidence No. 14 page of the record), ② the Defendant stated to the effect that he was not aware of the loss of the wall at the time when he was investigated by the police on the day of this case, and that he did not memory of the situation in the restaurant (Evidence No. 24-25 page of the record), ③ the operator of the damaged restaurant (Evidence No. 24-25 page of the record), ③ the Defendant made a written request for punishment against the Defendant around November 29, 2019, but the Defendant appears to have paid alcoholic beverages and food costs at least at least at the time when three weeks elapsed since the occurrence of this case.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. Determination of the argument of the crime of fraud of this case regarding sentencing is relatively small, and the fact that the victim’s test received the letter is favorable to the Defendant.

However, in the case of insult and obstruction of performance of official duties, it is against the police officer who has been punished several times due to violent crimes, including punishment, etc., and in particular, the recidivism during the period of repeated crimes is disadvantageous to the defendant.

Other crimes of this case.