Since the defendant operates a car page in the vicinity of the dwelling area, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents to prevent visitors from being exposed to the dog, by putting a warning sign clearly to be kept well in the vicinity of the dog, by combining a proper length line or installing fences around the dog, etc.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 2017. 2. 11. 22:00경 위 주거지 마당에 아무런 경고표지나 펜스 등의 시설 없이 약 10m 길이까지 와이어를 타고 움직일 수 있도록 개를 묶어 놓은 과실로 위 개가 그 곳을 방문한 손님인 피해자 D(여, 47세)에게 갑자기 달려들어 앞발로 피해자의 입 부분을 쳐 엉덩방아를 찧게 하고, 피해자의 왼손을 물게 하여 피해자에게 약 2주간의 치료가 필요한 좌측 손의 개에 의한 교합상 및 치수 침범이 없는 치관 파절 등의 상해를 입게 하였다.

Judgment

1. The negligence in the crime of bodily injury by negligence under the Criminal Act refers to realizing the result of bodily injury by neglecting normal care, and in order to impose such duty of care, there is an objective predictability for the result of the act.

Whether to impose a duty of care to avoid predicted results on an accused person shall be determined individually in accordance with specific cases, taking into account the causes, types and degree of danger to human life and body, the details and methods of measures taken by the offender, the situation at the time of damage, etc.

On the other hand, evidence of criminal facts in criminal proceedings is presented by the prosecutor.