A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts merely attempted to fight B and the victim, and did not help the victim to commit a murder or attempted murder, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of murdering and attempted murdering. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of suspended execution and one year of probation, one year of community service, and 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed in the misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to co-principal, and rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the grounds, by misunderstanding the facts. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant alleged the aforementioned purport in the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion on the following grounds: “In full view of various facts and circumstances admitted by the duly admitted evidence and duly examined evidence, the Defendant may be recognized to have strengthened the resolution of the crime by B, and facilitate the Defendant’s attempted murder by committing murder.” 2) According to the CCTV images attached to the record of the lower court’s determination on evidence, the Defendant can be recognized as having committed a crime of attempted murder, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts cannot be accepted merely because he tried to fight once again, and furthermore, according to the duly adopted and examined evidence, the Defendant could not be recognized to have easily committed the crime of B, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts cannot be justified.

B. On the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts