A. Considering the circumstance, degree, and situation at the time, etc. of assaulting the victim by a mistake of facts, the Defendant could not have predicted that his act would result in the death of the victim more than that of the victim’s injury.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts is that the crime of injury or death in the relevant legal principles is an aggravated crime, and there is a proximate causal relation between the act and the serious result, there is a possibility of predictability of the result of death, and the possibility of such predictability should be strictly determined by examining specific circumstances, such as the degree of assault and response of the victim, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do186, Mar. 25, 2005). The defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in the court below. Accordingly, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons as stated in its reasoning based on the following: the content of the autopsy appraisal document against the victim, the doctor's opinion that the defendant was in charge of treatment until the victim's death, the father's opinion that the defendant abused the victim and its degree, the situation of the victim before and after the assault, the CCTV image of the site of this case, etc.

In full view of the various circumstances in the lower court’s reasoning admitted by the evidence and the following circumstances revealed by the above evidence, i.e., the Defendant was taking the right investment tax and taking a part of the victim’s left face, and the victim was at the center of the victim’s left face, was used on the asphalt floor, and the victim was at the end of the victim’s arm’s length, and the other party could be much more shock if the body is loaded and sold, rather than the price on the paper.