While leaving a bicycle loaded on a truck, there is no fact that the victim's timber and head are faced with a bicycle.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on a different premise, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

The court below made a statement to the effect that "the victim had been close to the defendant's wife to promptly request the work of bicycle riding from the investigative agency to the court of the court below," which is the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below's determination of mistake of facts. The victim's statement is not only concrete and consistent, but also consistent with objective evidence, such as the injury diagnosis letter stating that the victim suffered injury such as the absence of two open locations, etc., and the credibility is high, ② also from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, the defendant left the bicycle with his wheels, and the victim was found to have lost his mind as soon as he had opened the witness at the court of the court of the court below." The victim's statement to the effect that "The victim was not only a witness at the court of the case, but also a witness at the court of the court of the court of the first instance, but also a witness at the court of the court of the court of the first instance."