The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case despite having difficulty in representing pet dog, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant was not fluorily represented by the pet dog.

(3) The Defendant’s assertion of mistake is without merit, even if the Defendant was unable to represent the pet dog immediately after the instant case, it is merely an element of sentencing due to circumstances after the establishment of the crime).

① At the investigative agency and the lower court, G stated that the Defendant did not speak on this part of the Defendant’s pet dog, and said that the Defendant was able to fluorize the Defendant’s pet dog in the match, and that the Defendant was fluorily fluoring the Defendant in the match, stating that “I would not be fluored.”

② The Defendant stated at an investigative agency that G referred that “A was a pety speech to the Defendant, and the J, its husband, made a statement to the effect that he she was frightened. It is natural to view that: (a) at the instant place where there were many tourists and their husbands, the Defendant was frightening the Defendant’s shoulder without any reason; (b) rather, (c) the Defendant was frightened by G and J in the instant place where G were able to leave the instant place, such as paragraph (1).

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