A. The defendant does not have any mistake of facts against the victim's interest.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, community service, 80 hours in the law-abiding class, 40 hours in the law-abiding class) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, i.e., (i) the fact that the defendant collected the suspect on the floor in the process of wrapping with the victim, (ii) the doctor who was on the table above the victim is the victim's losses, (iii) the victim was diagnosed by the original pelvise after the above crime was committed on the same day, and (iv) the victim was suffering from the treatment of the above parts at the time prior to the defendant's transfer of the crime in this case, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was aware of the victim's awareness or was dead, and thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of various sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant records and arguments, including the fact that there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment seems unfair. As such, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

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