The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal in this case, although the defendant was at the time of the appeal, the court below found that the pet line was unsatisfed and sentenced the defendant guilty. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

2. The judgment of the court below, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, found the following circumstances, namely, the defendant's her wife, her husband and her wife, and was responsible for the road of this case, but the opposite part was operating the bicycle in the direction of the victim. The victim stated from the police to the court of the court of the court below that the defendant's her her pet dog was protruding back in the front of the bicycle in the state where the her her pet dog was unsed, and that the her her her pet dog was about getting out of it. The defendant's her her pet dog was known when the victim her her her mind was cut out after the accident of this case, and the defendant was in the state where her her her pet dog was cut back to her her her hand, and the police officer dispatched at the time did not remove the her her pet dog to the defendant, and the police officer did not recognize the defendant's her her part of the accident of this case.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, the second and third roads of the judgment of the court below shall be corrected ex officio by correcting "bicycle roads" to "bicycle roads".