A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not commit this part of the crime which was found guilty at the lower court, and the Defendant was arrested at the police upon the request of I to bring an action against I. It brought an action against I.

B) The Defendant has no habitual nature of larceny. In the appellate brief submitted by the Defendant’s defense counsel, the Defendant asserted a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to habituality, but the Defendant withdrawn the allegation of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the fourth day of the trial at the trial at the trial at the court of the first instance. As such, the Defendant asserts the intention of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on this part, it is deemed that there exists an assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on this part.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor 1 of the court below, the defendant committed the larceny as stated in the judgment of the court below in combination with F, and the remaining larceny crimes except No. 18 out of the annexed list of crimes in the indictment of this case can be fully recognized. 2) The sentence of the court below’s unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the lower court by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, one nitromeras, one peri, one peri, one peri, one peri, one peri, and one peri, one peri, and one peri, which was cited by the Defendant at the time of arrest of the police for the crime of this part. The above things correspond to the victim E, and the said things appear to be an extension necessary for theft by intrusion upon the Defendant’s residence near the place where the crime was committed.