Defendant who has converted 100,000 won into one day when the above fine has not been paid;

shall be confined in a workhouse.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Defendant A is a person who satatt fat, and Victim C is a neighbor of the Defendant.

A person who raises a dog always has a duty to combine the dog or to prevent such danger by putting it on the fence because he/she is at risk of harming other persons. Accordingly, the Defendant neglected such management with respect to the sofat, which he/she kid, on June 8, 2015, when he/she neglected such management with respect to the sofat, the Defendant laid down the fat door and left part of the victim's left shoulder and left part of the victim's building at Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon, and on the street, around 31, 2015.

As above, the Defendant suffered injury that requires four weeks’ medical treatment, such as NOS OS, an open top of shoulder (on the left side), and an open top of the sloping (on the left side).

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1. The witness C and E respective legal statements;

1. Each written diagnosis;

1. A photograph of the suspect key;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 266(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. The assertion;

The Defendant’s Matat could not go beyond the wall and could not move the gate in any other way. Accordingly, the Defendant was not negligent for the Defendant, and the Defendant’s Mat can carry the victim with himself.

2. Determination

According to the evidence, the fact that the Defendant’s mat dog goes outside of the mixed mar house is the victim’s mar, the Defendant’s mat, the fact that the Defendant’s mat goes outside of the mixed mar, the fact that the Plaintiff opened an mat door to get the mixed mar, and the Defendant was aware that the Defendant was able to open and move out the mat even after opening the mat. Nevertheless, the Defendant may determine the fact that the mat dog was laid down in the mat without combining the mat with the mat. Comprehensively taking into account this, the Defendant’s mat dog does not go beyond the fence.

Even outside the house, it may be recognized that there is a negligence of the defendant in the questioning of the victim.