The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (defat), the Defendant’s satat could not go beyond the wall, and the Defendant could not go beyond the wall in any other way, so there was no negligence on the part of the Defendant, and the victim could not be the Defendant’s dog. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, in so determining, there was an error of mistake of facts.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this case. According to the evidence of the lower court’s judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendant was negligent in opening the door outside the house and leaving the gate, even if the Defendant’s mat dog was outside the mat house and outside the mat house, the Defendant’s mat was fat outside the house, and the Defendant was able to open the door and open it outside the middle, and the Defendant knew that mat was able to open and open the door even after opening the mat. Nevertheless, the Defendant was able to recognize the fact that mat was laid down in the mat. In full view of this, even if the Defendant’s mat dog did not go beyond the fence, it can be recognized that there was negligence on the part of the Defendant for the mat.

나. 당심의 판단 원심이 적법하게 채택조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 원심 설시와 같은 사정들에다가 위 증거들에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피해자는 원심 법정에서 '누나랑 저희 집 강아지를 산책하려고 동네 한 바퀴를 돌다가 피고인 집을 지나가던 중 평소에 피고인의 강아지가 밖에 나와 있지만 오늘은 안 나와 있겠지 하고 지나가려고 하였지만 피고인의 강아지가 목줄 없이 담장 밖 모퉁이에 앉아있어서 깜짝 놀라 그냥 가만히 서 있었는데, 피고인의 강아지가 자신들의 강아지한테 달려들면서 싸워서...