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

On September 12:20, 2017, the Defendant neglected his duty of care to prevent the occurrence of an accident, such as where he is going to know at the rest of the sports facility in Busan Metropolitan City Shipping Daegu sports facility, and where he is going to know at the rest of the sports facility in Busan Metropolitan City, the Defendant was negligent in managing the dog well to prevent the occurrence of the accident, and thereby, the Defendant sustained the injury of an open room in need of approximately two weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. C’s legal statement (a) is alleged to the effect that the Defendant fulfilled his/her duty of care as long as he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care. However, according to C’s testimony, etc., it can be known that the Defendant did not properly manage the line

1. Data (such as photographs) attached to a report on investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on inspection records;

1. Article 266 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 266 of the choice of punishment;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Articles 25 (1), 31 (1) and 31 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits for Compensation Orders;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant, even though one’s own opening is not the victim’s door, she makes a false statement as if the victim was her husband.

Appellanting, the following circumstances are important.

(1) There are many suspected parts of the victim's attitude.

The victims did not seem to be each victim, and did so well, and they want to receive medical treatment only in the way they want.

(2) The victim is dead.

According to the body photographs taken on the date of assertion, it is clear that the defendant's opening is not the upper body.

It can be known that the color of the upper body is clearly blick and clear, and the shape of the upper body is a straight line that is not a member of the Ban, and the shape of the upper body is entirely different from the form of the half.

2. However, C.