The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The main facts of the grounds for appeal or the misapprehension of the legal principles are nothing more than that of a person who caused a misunderstanding of the facts or a misunderstanding of the legal principles, rather than that of a defendant's pety due to the defendant's pety, and the defendant also has rescued the victim by deeming the victim to have suffered a sudden accident, and it does not help the victim.

The punishment sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing (five million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the facts charged in this case can be fully acknowledged that the Defendant sustained injury due to the Defendant’s negligence in breach of the duty of care, such as giving an pet dog without giving an pet dog, and thus, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as pointed out by the Defendant.

The Defendant, in a park as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment, laid a pet dog and let the pet dog freely free of charge. The Defendant, accompanied by a pet dog, has a duty of care, such as wearing a pet dog or ring the pet dog so as not to cause damage to others, such as pets or leashing, etc., and driving pet dogs.

In the court of the court below, while the victim was in a book in a park, he was found to have been used on the floor of the victim's disease while intending to get out of it by a brush of the defendant's satch.

If a pet dog, which does not wear a neck or dog, finds him/her out of his/her own, attempts to avoid this would be natural behavior.

피고인은 피고인의 애완견은 크기도 작고 평소 공격적인 성격이 아니었으며 이 사건 발생 장소는 ‘ 공사 중’ 팻말이 있어 인적이 드문...