A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the defendant thought that there was no visual clock, and thus there was no intention of larceny, and there was no fact that the police officer first assaulted the police officer, and even if the fact that the police officer assaulted the police officer, it constitutes a legitimate defense against the illegal performance of official duties, the court below convicted all of the charges. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the court below as a whole based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, i.e., ① the defendant was sufficiently aware that the visibility in a amusement room was owned and managed by another person; the defendant was asked to return the visibility from E, the owner of the foregoing visual activity on the following day after the visibility was stolen; ② the police officer, I, and J rejected the demand; ② the defendant was sent to the scene of the assault reported by the investigation agency to the court below; ③ the statement made at the investigation agency E, G, and K corresponds to the statements of the above police officer; ③ the witness at the time is sufficiently recognized as having committed an assault against the police officer who stolen and performs duties related to E; and the defendant's first act of assaulting the police officer under investigation cannot be deemed as constituting a legitimate defense, and therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in the state that he/she did not go somewhat as a mentally disabled person with a mental disability of Grade III, and the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime.