Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant has a duty of care to manage those who manage and operate C’s fish farm and those who raise a dog in the fish farm since January 2013, to prevent any harm to others by putting the dog on a dog or wearing protective outfits, such as a dog, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant committed an attack from around 11:00 on August 1, 2014 to the front line of the fish farm located in Seopopopo-si, Seopo-si, and neglected leaving the upper line of the above miscellaneous dog without wearing the miscellaneous dog. From around 16:00 on the same day, the Defendant was at the end of a nearby Epo-si, and the victim F (F, 53 years old) was bound by combining the miscellaneous dog on the front line of the Epo-si in the vicinity of the Epo-si, thereby breaking the Defendant’s miscellaneous dog, etc., and the Defendant was able to attack the miscellaneous dog by opening the miscellaneous dog. The victim was trying to control the miscellaneous dog’s attack by cutting the Dopo-si line, losing the center of the body, leaving the body of 2 times more than 12 weeks, and suffered pressure for approximately 12 weeks treatment due to the shock.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports, investigation reports, etc. and investigation reports;

1. Relevant Article 266 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. There is no proximate causal relation, since the alleged defendant cannot be deemed to have any negligence, and the defendant's opening does not directly attack the victim.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the Defendant went into the instant dog in the fish farm. The Defendant was on the way to go into the fish farm.