The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of the trial are jointly and severally borne by the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the accident of mistake of facts was not caused by the dog in which the Defendants raised, the Defendants cannot be punished as a crime of injury by negligence, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one hundred thousand won by fine) against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the court of first instance as to the assertion of mistake of facts were duly adopted and investigated. ① The defendants' dog was discovered by the defendants around 20:00 on the day of this case; ② the victim reported to the police immediately after the hospital treatment; ② the victim was reported to the police on the day of the instant case. According to the photographs taken by the hospital, it is recognized that the victim was faced with face, face, right bridge, and arms; ③ the victim was in accord with the circumstances stated that the victim was used in the right right direction; ③ the fact that there was a room to keep away from the defendants' dog on the day of the instant case; ④ The fact inquiry result with the chief of the court of first instance on the traffic accident assessment report to the chief of the court of first instance, even if it was based on the results of the fact inquiry, it is determined that the defendants' body material materials at the scene of the accident, such as the photograph, damaged part, route, and the victim's injury and side, and the victim's response to mistake of facts.

B. The injury suffered by the victim in relation to the assertion of unfair sentencing is not easy, and it is still against the victim.