The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant was responsible for a pet dog without a brushing a pet dog. However, the victim was frighting a bicycle and frighting the Defendant, and other frighting another dog without a brush line was the victim’s bridge.

There is no credibility in the victim's statement to the effect that "a pet of the defendant was the victim's bridge," and the victim's statement E, a punishment for the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found that the defendant's pet dog asked the victim's her her pathy to inflict an injury by asking the victim's her her pathy.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts was 1). In full view of the following: (i) the fact that the victim was faced with a wound by him at the time of the instant case and the fact that the Defendant was faced with him at that time; and (ii) the victim was guilty on the ground that the Defendant was sufficiently aware of the facts alleged in the lower court’s judgment by comparing the aforementioned facts with the evidence of the lower court, the lower court’s determination was duly acceptable, based on the following: (a) the victim was damaged by the investigative agency to “buckbucks,” and, (b) the Defendant got out of her dog, and there was no other number in his wife; (c) the victim’s explanation is consistent with the statement; and (d) E, the victim’s punishment, stated, “I were in the vicinity at the time of their delivery to the dog; and (d) the Defendant got out of his dog.”