beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts: (a) At the time, the Defendant: (a) carried a pet dog with the pet dog at the time; (b) carried the pet dog; and (c) controlled the victim so that the pet dog could not become the victim; (d) as pet dog was back to the pet dog, the Defendant did not neglect the management of pet dog; and (b) the Defendant’s pet dog did not cause serious injury to the extent that the victim’s pet dog was subject to medical treatment for three weeks.
B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined in the trial of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) The victim, as consistently from the investigation agency to the court of the court of the first instance, was placed in the direction of the apartment management office in the same time and place as indicated in the judgment of the court below; (ii) the victim stated that the victim was treated in the direction of the apartment management office, such as the defendant's pety dog, etc.; and (iii) the victim was treated as being disinfected and treated as an antibiotic drugs at the P.M. hospital; and (iv) the photographs taken of the victim's diagnosis date (O. 25, 2018) and the injured part were supported by the victim's statement; and (iii) according to the victim's statement of injury diagnosis, the victim's pet dog could be recognized as having inflicted an injury as described in the judgment of the court below after asking the part of the victim's paper.
Furthermore, even if the Defendant bound a pet line to the pet dog, the reason why the pet dog is bound to control the pet dog so that it does not harm others, such as leaving others. According to the victim's statement, pet dog was left unattended without pet lines. According to the defendant's pet book, according to the defendant's pet book, the defendant can ask people regardless of the pet dog.