A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the facts, did not cause the instant traffic accident since he driven a bicycle due to the theft of the bicycle at the time of the instant case, but the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant caused the instant traffic accident as stated in the judgment below and sustained injury to the victim. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the defendant does not have a criminal record exceeding the same criminal record or fine, and that the victim does not want to punish the defendant.

However, considering the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., as well as the circumstances after the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, as it is deemed that the Defendant’s allegation on this part is not reasonable, given that the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc. is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.