A. The Defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol at the time of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, was faced with the wall, and the main wall was molded, and the beer’s disease was broken on the table, and the Defendant did not have the intention of property damage.

The father of the defendant asked the police officer to write the defendant into his own vehicle in order to care for the defendant, who is a personnel infinite, and asked the police officer to kill the defendant during that process, only he attempted to kill the defendant and caused his body finite, and there is no reason to bin off the police officer, or to bin off the police officer's shoulder.

Police officers had been faced with the defendant in the course of trying to board the defendant on the floor or faced with a shoulder glass.

There was no interference with police officers such as assault, intimidation, etc. by the defendant, and it is unclear whether the police officers interfered with the police officer's official duties.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant of the charge of damaging property and obstructing the performance of special official duties.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was suffering from mental illness, such as depression, and was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted by the Defendant, including each statement at H, I, E’s investigation agency, and court, as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the fact that the Defendant destroyed property, such as the facts charged, can be sufficiently recognized by affixing his head on the wall of fry trees inside the main points at the time.

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles cannot be accepted.

(2) include each statement in H, I, and E’s investigative agencies and courts that interfere with the performance of special duties.