The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant was a person who raises large dogs (150 cm in size, 45 km in body) in the old-si area in the old-si area B, and the above dwelling area is a general house. In such a case, there was a duty of care to manage the Defendant by taking appropriate measures to prevent the Defendant from harming others by putting the dog up or putting the dog out of the house, and by taking other measures so that he may not leave without permission.

Nevertheless, at around 17:10 on July 17, 2020, the Defendant: (a) laid the dog in the mast without wearing a neck or ring-out dog in the Defendant’s residence; (b) laid the dog in the mast without wearing a neck or ring-out dog; (c) laid the dog outside of the est, by his negligence going beyond the wall and going outside the house; (d) laid the arms of the victim D (n, 35 years old); and (e) laid the est of the victim D (n, 35 years old); and (e) asked the victim C to put about three weeks of medical treatment; and (e) suffered injury, such as water flag or flad with a dog in need of four weeks of medical treatment.

2. The crime of this case is a crime falling under Article 266(1) of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s will specifically manifested pursuant to Article 266(2) of the Criminal Act.

According to the records, the victim D and C prepared on September 18, 2020, after the prosecution of this case, a “written agreement” stating that they would not want punishment against the defendant, along with the “written agreement,” which was originally agreed upon by the defendant, and expressed their intention not to want punishment against the defendant by submitting it to this court on September 18, 2020.

Therefore, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.