A. Fact-misunderstanding (crime 1, 3, 4, and 5 related to the crime) 1) The Defendant did not steals the Defendant’s friendly acid owned by the victim E (crime 1) (crime 2). The Defendant did not have any fact of cutting away the victim’s L/C vehicle toward the part of the Defendant (crime 3) and the Defendant did not have any fact of cutting off the fire to damage the victim’s office windows by entering the victim’s E’s office. (Criminal facts 4) The Defendant displayed the flowers and only fell into the floor (criminal facts 4) E on July 26, 2016, and there was no misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the Defendant’s act of cutting off the Defendant’s house in favor of the Defendant’s head of the defense against the Defendant’s house lapsy of the king. Even if the Defendant continued to do so, it did not constitute a separate crime against the Defendant’s infringement of the right to self-defense of the king, thereby there was no misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the Defendant’s 5 Defendant’s lale.

(c)

The defendant with mental and physical weakness has received a long-term medical treatment at a hospital due to alcohol dementia, and was discharged from the hospital prior to three days prior to the occurrence of the instant case. The defendant committed each of the instant crimes under the influence of alcohol as a patient with severe alcohol alcohol and lacks mental and physical health.

(d)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Criminal facts 1) and 3

A. (1) and (2). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court recognized that the Defendant committed a crime with the same content as that of the facts stated in paragraphs (1) and (3) of the lower judgment.