The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's opening is not a victim, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and the court below's punishment (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant's house in front of the defendant's house in C has a lot of usual people, so the defendant has a duty of care to take safety measures, such as putting the dog raised by the defendant out of the house to prevent harm to the people and kid by isolation, etc. However, the defendant, at around April 28, 2010, kept the defendant's dog ( approximately 80-90cm in length, about 60cm in height, about 60cm in height), and caused the victim's dog by negligence to go out of the house, after asking about 3 weeks of the victim D (n, 8 years in age), who had been suffering from the victim's bucking around the left-hand buck in need of treatment for about 3 weeks.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the record of judgment, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s opening was the victim solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

① 피해자는 원심 법정에서 자신을 문 개는 ‘몸이 거의 하얗고 목걸이를 착용하고 있었는데 무슨 보석같은 것이 달려있었다’라고 진술하였고, 당심에서도 여전히 그 개가 하얀색이라고 진술하였는바, 초등학교 3학년인 피해자가 색을 혼동하여 진술하였다고 보기 어렵다

(2) After the accident, the victim was found to have her face before H laundry, and the victim's outer money was found to have been raised at the nearby house, and the house of the defendant is located at the port after the passage of H laundry, and the house of the defendant is located at the middle of H laund.

(3) The aggrieved person shall be able to get out of a hospital together with what he has left.