All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Inasmuch as there is no credibility of the victim D’s statement, the only direct evidence of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, the instant facts charged was not proven without any reasonable doubt. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below's legitimately adopted and examined evidence, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake in the facts alleged by the defendant, and the defendant's assertion of mistake in the facts is without merit.

① At the lower court, the victim made a statement to the effect that “to the entrance of a shoulderer beer’s disease is reliable,” and the investigative agency also made a statement to the same effect.

(45 pages of the trial records and 139 pages of the evidence). (2) The Defendant argued that the Defendant: (a) informed the victim of the beer disease, and told the victim to kill himself; (b) the victim, “B kn,” kn, knicked the beer’s disease at a distance from the next half to the next half.

(Evidence Records 137, 138 pages). (3) The Defendant stated to the effect that he did not have the victim affected when he was sealed by the beer’s disease. However, as above, the Defendant discarded beer’s disease and returned to the victim, and the victim got out of the beer’s disease (Evidence Records 138 pages) but it is difficult to find out the possibility that the third party inflicted an injury upon the Defendant and the victim after entering the short time between the Defendant and the victim.

④ G appears to have made a relatively objective statement because both the Defendant and the victim have a relationship (Evidence Record 55,56 pages).

The court below held that the defendant's disease is a favorable disease.