A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in the obstruction of performance of official duties, the defendant can be recognized as having performed the obstruction of performance of official duties as stated in the facts of the crime.

B. The following facts and circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on attempted larceny and intrusion upon residence.

The victim reported 112 immediately after the crime was committed, and the victim reported 112 that he was "a man who used a mast to write mast to the head of the middle half of the 20th century and carried out a black mast.

The police conducted an inspection of the accused who was fried at a place where approximately 230 meters away from the place of crime.

The victim stated, as above, about about 15 minutes from the time when 112 was reported, that “the offender showed the appearance that the offender is prone in the room, and that he and she replaced him. The same is the same as the offender. The voice includes the same physical strength, appearance, and appearance. The Defendant was suffering at the time of committing the crime of the form of erokeas in which the Defendant was in his possession.”

Evidence records 27, 141, 142, and 143. The defendant was a male who was born in 1984 and was in possession of the head of the post, the military color, the mast, etc. at the time.

The Defendant has failed to consistently explain the circumstances surrounding the place where the instant crime was committed.

In full view of the above facts and circumstances, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is justified.

C. In full view of the circumstances leading up to the crime, method of commission of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which were revealed by the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant does not seem to have been in a state of mental disorder beyond a mental and physical disability at the

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous or misunderstanding the legal principles.