2) Defendant 1’s mental and physical disorder (a special intrusion upon residence) was under the influence of alcohol at the time when the crime of intrusion upon a special house was committed, and thus, the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

② The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by misunderstanding the facts as follows or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(1) The Defendant went to a locked gate without carrying a pipe, and entered the locked gate after the intrusion, and caused a decline pipe in the locked. Thus, the Defendant infringed upon the residence by carrying dangerous articles.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(2) The Defendant had the intent and ability to carry out the construction project at the time of entering into the construction contract with the victim K, but it is merely that the construction project was not carried out as planned by the financing problem. (3) Although the Defendant had the intent and ability to carry out the construction project at the time of entering into the construction contract with the victim S., while the construction project was being carried out, it was delayed due to the discovery of the fact of intrusion on the neighboring building

(3) The punishment of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it can be recognized that the Defendant had drinking alcohol at the time when the Defendant prevented the crime of intrusion into a special residence.

However, in light of the background and method of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant was in a state of having no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime

It is difficult to see it.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts 1).