Although the Defendant appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant made a confession on the facts constituting an offense at the fourth trial date, withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and claimed unfair sentencing.

2. It is reasonable to take into account the fact that the Defendant made a confession of and reflects against the Defendant when he was in a trial. However, in light of all the sentencing conditions stated in the records of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, and circumstances after committing the instant crime, the sentence of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s self-injury from the investigative agency to the lower trial is denied; and (b) the process of following the instant crime is not good; (c) the strong pressure toward the face of a person; (d) the method of committing the instant crime is not sufficient; and (e) there is no trace of efforts made to recover the victim’s face; and (e) there is no agreement with the victim; and (e) in light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, and circumstances after committing the instant crime.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.