If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The defendant is a person who raises a pet dog and the victim B (the age of 11) is a resident who lives in an apartment such as the defendant.

Since an pet dog is likely to injure or damage a person, a person who displays an pet dog has a duty to take safety measures to prevent such danger, such as taking safety measures to prevent the pet dog from being exposed to an stringr.

Nevertheless, at around 20:30 on June 3, 2018, the Defendant did not take any safety measures against the pet dog in front of the Hanam-si C Apartment Ddong, and the said pet dog went to the victim who performed the drinking-water in front of the apartment, thereby causing the Defendant’s opening to the victim by asking the victim for the right side of the left side of the pet dog, thereby suffering an injury in the number of days of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of B and E;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no victim’s satisfy report, suspect photograph, victim’s photograph, victim’s photograph, and 112 declaration processing statement and the victim’s satisfy report were to put the Defendant to the satisfy dog, and there was another dog at the time close to the victim at the time of the victim’s satisfying. Thus, the victim’s satisfy was not the victim’s satisfy. However, this court duly adopted and investigated the following circumstances according to the aforementioned evidence. In other words, the facts that the victim suffered satfs at the time of the ruling and the Defendant’s satisfy on the satch, and the victim’s witness B, from the investigative agency to the present court, have made the satisfy report, and the Defendant did not have any other dog on the satisfy, and the victim’s satisfy statement in detail and consistent with the empirical rule.