The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

around 10:20 on August 18, 2019, the Defendant: (a) moved the Defendant’s roadsides of India, which are passed by many unspecified persons in front of the C convenience points in the Gyeong-si, Chungcheongnam-si; and (b) entered the above convenience points.

In such cases, the defendant, who is the above owner, has a duty of care to prevent him from harming people who walk around his dog by taking measures such as cutting the line or covering his dog.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and did not control the length of his dog, and did so, thereby violating the duty of care, such as leaving the dog and leaving it as it is, and went to the victim D (the age of 76) who was living in the opening, and the victim was injured by the 1 BOY’s bOY which requires approximately six weeks of treatment.

Judgment

The facts charged in this case are crimes falling under Article 266(1) of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the will expressed by the victim under Article 266(2) of the same Act.

Since the victim expressed his/her intention not to punish the defendant on July 2, 2020 after the prosecution of this case, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.