The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are the fact that the Defendant has driven tobacco on the side of a utility pole while under the influence of alcohol, but did not attach a sphere to the sphere by a single-use throwter.

Since there was no intention of fire prevention against the defendant, the court below which found the defendant guilty of the charge of fire prevention of general goods erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

A mentally ill-minded defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but the lower court committed an unlawful act that was in a state of mental disability.

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

Judgment

In regard to the assertion of misunderstanding facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below judged that: (a) the defendant made a confession in the prosecutor's office specifically persuasively and persuasively: (b) the defendant made a confession to the effect that "I knew that the width might have been accumulated in the vicinity or that he might have been laid in the strings due to the outbreak of the width; (c) there are no special circumstances to doubt the background or motive leading up to the confession; and (d) the contents of the confession are inconsistent with other circumstantial evidences; (b) the defendant was present at the court of the court of the court of the court and the court of the court of the court of the court of the court in order to report the boiler to be returned; and (d) the defendant was in the front of that; and (d) the defendant stated to the effect that "I would have not been able to turn out the strings in the front; and (d) the defendant did not have any intention to commit the act in question, and it is difficult to recognize that the defendant did not have any intention to commit the act in question at the time of the defendant."

The court below held.