beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is not only unclear whether the victim was asked to the opening of the defendant, but also there are water in the opening.
Even if the victim was the primary act of the victim, it cannot be viewed that the defendant was negligent.
Judgment
In light of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, the defendant's opening price was asked the victim around August 13, 2009 and around October 3, 2013, and such accidents were caused by the defendant's negligence who violated the duty to safely manage one's dog.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
The victim consistently states that he/she suffered respectively from his/her right side of the first accident (on August 13, 2009, around 17:00) due to the first accident (on August 13, 2009) by an investigative agency and this court, as stated in the judgment of the court, due to the fact that he/she suffered from his/her right side of the second accident (on October 3, 2013).
B. At the time of the first accident, the Defendant stated that there was a face of contact that the victim was in contact with the Defendant, and that he saw the Defendant’s home bomb away from the Defendant’s house after the second accident.
C. The victim made an inconsistent statement on the Defendant’s opening in relation to the first accident, but the victim first police investigation stated that “the opening was frighted by the panel instead of the front door to prevent the opening from coming out of the opening (the 6th page of the investigation record).” On February 28, 2014, the prosecutor made a statement that “the opening of the gate was written and the 80th page of the gate was presented” (the 80th page of the trial record) that “the opening of the gate was written and the gate was written.” The court made a statement that “the quih was opened by the quihor of the Defendant, so that the quihor of the quihor, the quihor, the quihor of the quihor, the quihor of the Defendant.”