A. In fact-finding, the Defendant merely saw the return dog owned by the victim D (hereinafter “the return dog of this case”) on the multilateral floor, and did not support the vessels of the return dog of this case as indicated in the judgment of the court below.

B. Even if the Defendant was guilty of an unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can fully recognize the fact that the return dog of this case was supported as stated in the judgment below.

Defendant’s assertion of mistake is not accepted.

① The victim asserted that the Defendant had directly observed the return dogs of this case from the investigative agency to the original trial court, and specifically stated the details thereof, the situation before and after the case, etc., and no circumstance exists to suspect the credibility of the victim’s statement.

② Other objective evidence, such as a written diagnosis, written confirmation, and written medical examination and treatment, as to the instant return dog, also conforms to the victim’s statement.

According to the above medical certificate, etc., the above medical certificate, etc. states that "the return dog of this case is very unstable in mental and so it is judged that the possibility of external stress symptoms is highly high." This is consistent with the victim's assertion that the return dog of this case suffered an injury, such as depression, etc. due to the defendant's act.

③ At the immediately preceding stage of the instant case, the Defendant stated that the return dog owned by the victim was in a state where the appraisal was satisfed with the victim while making an inquiry with respect to the baring of his son, and immediately immediately after the instant case, the Defendant called “the place where only the satisf is being asked.”

Considering the previous and subsequent circumstances of the instant case, the Defendant inflicted an injury upon the instant return dog.