When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant is a person who raises two maats with a fat with a past person.

In such cases, the owners have the duty of care to control the opening so that the dog does not attack or play any other person by taking safe measures, such as attaching a dog to the dog.

Nevertheless, on the ground that the Defendant neglected to perform the construction of a house, the Defendant laid down the 2 miles of the said dog and did not manage it on March 22, 2017 at around 12:40, on the ground that he neglected to do so, and caused the victim D (V, 48 years of age) who was located in the North west-gun C before the end of March 22, 2017. In order for the said dog to remove the horse business from the said dog, the Defendant promptly caused the victim’s satis and the sat brea at the left end.

As a result, the Defendant suffered from the above negligence the injury of the victim, such as salt, tension, etc. in the part where it is unknown about the fingers, which requires two-day medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. A criminal investigation report (related to the statement of a police officer in the field), a criminal investigation report (the phone call of an emergency rescue worker in the 119 emergency call), a criminal investigation report (the results of CCTV image analysis), and a criminal investigation report (related to on-site investigations);

1. Application of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes to each photograph, CD, and written diagnosis;

1. Article 266 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 266 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant's assertion and judgment on Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the claim is that the defendant's opening of the defendant is not the victim.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, namely, ① the victim was a person living in adjoining the Defendant, and the Defendant’s dog was driven by the Defendant’s dog, and the Defendant’s dog was fright away from the car. In the process, his arms, fingers, etc.