업무상과실치상
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that there is no negligence on the part of the defendant inasmuch as the victim stimulates himself/herself, even though he/she exercised due care, such as creating separate space, raising the instant dog, etc.
Although the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts about occupational negligence or misunderstanding of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, at the time of the instant case, the victim was brupted to use and rhym the head of the instant dog in our country on the Dognaf operated by the Defendant, and the victim suffered from the victim's left part of the Dognaf where treatment is required for approximately 2 weeks of treatment. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence, i.e., when the instant dog raised by the Defendant was 130 to 140cm, the height of our country at the time of the instant case was merely 120cm, and the head of our country could have come out of Korea; ii) The above dog's Dognaf was installed in the part where the customer's passage was frequently installed; and iii) the Defendant could be able to find out the said dog's Dognaf where the Dognaf was operated in a safe manner, such as where the Dognaf was operated by our customers.