(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.04.11 2017고단3635

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.04.11 2017고단3635

과실치상

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

around 16:30 on May 8, 2017, the Defendant was accompanied by the Defendant’s pet dog (two years and six months after his birth, and miscellaneous dog) in front of Songpa-gu Seoul E, Songpa-gu.

In such cases, a person accompanied by a pet dog has a duty of care to manage him/her so that he/she may not be able to take the pet dog due to the adjustment of the length of the pet.

Nevertheless, the defendant does not keep a person who pets of the defendant.

At the same time, due to negligence of neglecting the above duty of care, the victim F (n, 16 years of age) who passed by his/her dog was able to be her right-hand baby, thereby resulting in approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs damaged;

1. Article 266 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 266 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order: although the defendant had contact with the victim, the defendant did not suffer any injury as stated in the judgment by asking the victim, and there was a violation of the defendant's duty of care in the process of asking the victim.

I argue that it cannot be seen.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court was comprehensively taken into account: ① the victim stated in this Court that “the victim attempted to turn on the side of the road”; ② the Defendant had a duty of care to control the length of pet lines so as not to protect people, and thus, did not take such measures; ③ the victim was under medical treatment with the Defendant and the hospital immediately after the instant case, and received hospital treatment over several occasions. ④

참조조문

-형법 제69조 제2항

-형법 제70조 제1항

-형법 제266조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2020.12.07 2020노35

-대구지방법원 2016.11.18 2016고정2090

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2018.07.12 2018고정130

-수원지방법원 2021.02.16 2020고정1413

-서울동부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017고단3288