A. In fact, the victim was aware of the bicycle driving by himself, and the defendant was driving a bicycle as shown in the facts charged and did not go beyond the victim's bicycle riding.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (hereinafter “the penalty”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the defendant attempted to overtake the victim in the valley section while recognizing the fact that the victim was not able to get a bicycle riding; (ii) the defendant also stated that he was in a situation where the victim was unable to take a voice through a post-specing operation; (iii) the defendant was in a situation where the victim was 50 meters away from the victim's 50 meters away from the victim's post-specing operation; and (iv) the defendant confirmed the victim's condition and informed her husband of the victim's contact; and (v) the defendant's bicycle was faced with the victim's bicycle by agreement between the husband of the victim and the victim following the pre-speing operation.

In light of the fact that there is no particular circumstance to deny the credibility of the statement on the record, the defendant can sufficiently be recognized that the defendant has inflicted bodily injury by exceeding the victim who has been a bicycle rider by violating his duty of care as a bicycle rider as shown in the facts charged. Thus, the judgment of the court below contains an error of law by misunderstanding the facts as alleged in the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, there is no change of circumstances that can be considered in the sentencing after the judgment of the court below, and comparing the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and the theory of changes, the defendant is on the ground of appeal.