The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding and the misapprehension of the legal principle) is not that of the defendant, and the defendant has no obligation to enter the court.

In addition, the defendant did not commit negligence because he fulfilled his duty of care necessary to prevent the opening of the family.

2. The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part in the lower judgment, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground of the evidence duly admitted and examined, on the ground that the Defendant neglected to exercise the duty of care to manage the person in the book so that he/she is not dead.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

When taking appropriate measures to prevent openings, such as ascertaining the opening habits of one's management and predicting the situation that may arise in a public place, and taking appropriate measures to prevent openings from being exposed or causing harm to the openings, due to failure to neglect to observe the openings while passing through, it bears the duty of care to thoroughly manage the openings by means of giving attention to the openings or cutting the lines more shorter, etc.

The name of the defendant is about 26 km due to a storm.

At the time, it is difficult to view that the Defendant fulfilled his duty of care to prevent the absence of a person in light of the body weight, solely on the basis that the Defendant carried the dog to the dog and continuously led the dog to the dog.

The victim and D consistently came to the defendant in the course of the investigation, and ① the opening of the victim first come to the defendant, ② the opening of the victim was frightened to the victim, ③.