업무상과실치상
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted in the summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles), the defendant breached his duty of care, such as building fences around the dog in which the defendant is raising, or preventing the victim from approaching the dog, and thereby recognizing the fact that the victim suffered bodily injury from the dog. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby acquitted the defendant.
2. In a criminal trial, the finding of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, even if there is a doubt of guilt against the defendant (Supreme Court Decision 92Do3327 delivered on March 23, 1993). Examining the reasons for the judgment of innocence in light of relevant evidence and records, it is difficult for the court below to acknowledge that the defendant neglected to exercise his duty of care on the grounds stated in its reasoning.
Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit, since the measure of not guilty of the facts charged in this case is legitimate.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit.