Since the place where a dog is raised is neighboring a house in which many village people live, the dog is likely to cause harm to neighboring residents, so the defendant has a duty of care to prevent harm to people by fixing the dog as a manager.

Nevertheless, on December 14, 2018, the Defendant did not fulfill the above duty of care and did not take a neck, thereby resulting in the Defendant’s injury to the victim E (n.e., 91 years old) and the victim E and the victim F (n., 66 years old) by entering a house of the victim E (n.e., 91 years old) with a miscellaneous dog raised by the Defendant around 13:00 on December 14, 2018, and suffered injury to the victim E, such as the right side, the floor, the credit mar, and the kn.e., the kn., the kn., the kn.e., the kn., the kn. kn. that the Defendant raised, and the kn.s.

2. The facts charged of this case are cases in which a prosecution cannot be instituted against the express intent of the victim pursuant to Article 266(2) of the Criminal Act. According to the records, it is recognized that the victims expressed their intention not to be punished for the defendant after the institution of the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act