The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the grounds of appeal submitted by the Defendant and the written statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the Defendant, and the written statement of objections submitted by the Defendant, and the written statement of the trial court at the trial of the Defendant and the defense counsel, the

A. In regard to larceny, the Defendant did not have stolen the Defendant’s worship as stated in this part of the facts charged. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine. (2) As to the crime of interference with business, the crime of causing property damage, and the crime of assault, the victim E was “unbornly” against the Defendant on the bus, and the victim E was first faced with a trial cost. In response to the Defendant’s defense, the Defendant used the bus and abused the Defendant, and the Defendant used the door, and the Defendant committed each act described in this part of the facts charged while defending the Defendant.

Therefore, the act of the defendant as stated in the facts charged constitutes self-defense.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and thus, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

3) As to the part concerning the crime of quasi-special robbery, the defendant's act constitutes self-defense inasmuch as the defendant's act was found guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that he did not have the intention of larceny because he can bring about the crops as stated in this part of the facts charged, and thus, he did not have the intention of larceny, and the victim first puts the knife with crops in order to protect the defendant from exercising violence by doing so. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes self-defense. Nevertheless, as the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. The court below's sentence imposed on the defendant by unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2...