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

On May 9, 2016, the Defendant neglected the Defendant’s duty of care to prevent pedestrian access by installing safety fences or safety signs in a manner that makes it difficult for the Defendant to take care of pedestrians in advance, on the part of the victim E (12 years old) who used the said openings to d real estate located in Gangseo-si, Gangnam-si, the Defendant used the Defendant’s office, using a white dog (string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string string 2 weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F, G and H;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A medical certificate, certificate of discharge from a entrance, and a copy of medical records;

1. The application of two Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (Attachment of site photographs, etc.), four copies of photographs, four copies of internal reports (the site of the case and the opening pictures of attacking the victim, etc.), 12 copies of the site photographs of the case, the investigation report (Attachment of photographs on the surface of the victim and photographs submitted to the victim), two copies of photographs on the surface of the victim, and two copies of photographs submitted to the victim;

1. Article 266 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 266 of the choice of punishment;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant is not a white owner in determining the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, namely, the Defendant: (a) sold a white dog from the F around spring in 2014; and (b) even based on the Defendant’s assertion, the F was unable to properly manage the white dog thereafter; and (c) as a mixed standard, whether it is necessary to re-undertake the white dog.

“The Defendant is only a white dog.”