A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

When the defendant goes out, he/she shall be accompanied by a dog as the owner of an animal subject to registration (mathy, three-years), and shall take safety measures, such as a rope, when going out.

Nevertheless, at around 14:56 October 9, 2019, the Defendant laid the horse business by unleashing the said horse business at the playground in front of the B apartment Cdong in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, without being able to do so, and she was fele at the left side of the victim D (Feeeeeee, 3) who was located there, and febbbbbbbbs at the left side of the victim E (n, 9 years old).

As a result, the defendant did not take safety measures such as a line to the opening, thereby causing damage to the integrity of the bridge that requires treatment for about two weeks in detail to the above D, and the "injury to the victim E by water or by facing with the force that requires treatment for about three weeks."

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each police statement of the E, F, G, and H;

1. A written statement of G and F;

1. On October 16, 100, a report of internal internal history (victim E-friendly currency), report of internal internal history (victim D's DNA currency on October 16, 10), report of internal history (CCTV image verification and whitening), closure of CCTV image data, each medical certificate (Presentation of Victim), each damaged photograph (Presentation of Victim), and the application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on photograph of damage;

1. Relevant Article 46 (2) 1-3 of the Animal Protection Act and Articles 13 (2) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the sentencing of the instant case was based on the victim’s age, the victim D or his parents did not receive any doubt and did not reach an agreement, etc. is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

The fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects it, that there is no criminal punishment power, that the defendant has yet to be improved and edification as a juvenile, and that there is an agreement with the victim E.