All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the Defendant was the first offender, and that the Defendant paid medical expenses of KRW 5 million to the victim.

B. The Defendant alleged that a fine should be reduced due to the Defendant’s fault when the victim was her, but the Defendant’s fault is very heavy in light of the following circumstances, even if the victim took out the dog, and the victim was negligent.

shall not be deemed to exist.

1) Although the Defendant had asked a person even around February 2014, the Defendant neglected to take measures, such as cutting down a neck or covering the neck, the Defendant caused the other accident of this case.

2) The opening of the defendant is not only a fact that he asked a person before, but also a dog in the degree of serious injury as shown below in the defendant's photograph.

3) The location where the instant accident occurred is the front of the victim’s house. This is because the opening of the Defendant key infringed on the victim’s house.

4) The Defendant presented a written statement by the police about the victim and witness D on the ground that the victim was the victim when the victim was the victim, and according to this, the reason why the victim was the victim when the victim was the victim was the victim's wife is because the opening was about to be the victim (see, e.g., 25th and 29th of the appeal submitted by the Defendant).

As above, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s negligence is very large while there is no negligence on the part of the victim; (b) the victim was seriously injured; (c) the Defendant did not agree with the victim; and (d) did not recover from the damage; and (c) the Defendant’s age, details of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court also takes into account the conditions favorable to the Defendant as seen earlier.