The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. On October 10, 2017, at around 10:55, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant carried a white pet dog (a size of approximately 50cm, size of 16km) in the Defendant’s vehicle and carried a pet dog on the Defendant’s vehicle, and went to the veterinary hospital.

In such cases, the Defendant, as a person who raises a pet dog, has a duty of care to pay considerable attention to the custody of the pet dog in accordance with the type and nature of the animal, was negligent in leaving the said pet dog without leaving it, and opening the said pet gate. At that time, the Defendant suffered an animal disturbance that requires approximately two weeks of treatment by asking the right side of the victim D (V, 67 years old) where the said pet dog was in front of the Defendant’s home.

2. The judgment of the court below is a crime falling under Article 266(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 266(2) of the Criminal Act. Since the victim expressed his/her intention not to prosecute the defendant on April 16, 2018, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.