The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four months for the crimes of No. 1 and No. 3 of the judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the misunderstanding of legal principles or the facts charged in this case of mistake of facts, the evidence corresponding to this part of the facts charged is limited to the police officers' testimony at the court below by the police and the tobacco butts discovered at the site of this case. The main contents of the above police officers' testimony are the defendant's statement, and it cannot be proved that the statement was made in a particularly reliable state, and it is not admissible, and the above tobacco butts cannot be ruled out that the third party intentionally left the scene of this case and it cannot be ruled out that the above evidence alone cannot be found guilty of this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of crime, the court below which found the guilty guilty erred by misunderstanding legal principles or misunderstanding

B. The sentencing of the lower court (one month of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes No. 2 in the original judgment and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes No. 1 and No. 3 in the original judgment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of facts by the defendant

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, including the witness M and N’s statement in the court below at the police investigation stage of the judgment of the court below, namely, the detection of DNA by the defendant at the tobacco butts collected at the site of this case; if the defendant asserts, the defendant was found to have been in the field of garbage, or he fabricated evidence at the investigation agency. This is very exceptional and imminent; the crime of this case is a kind similar to the record before the judgment of the court below and before the judgment of the court below, and the defendant is about the process and process of the crime committed by the police.