The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant: (a) in the “E” operated by the victim on September 28, 2013; (b) one math of the horse dog (hereinafter “1 pet dog”).

(E) The Defendant purchased the horse pets (hereinafter “Second pets”) brought from the above “E” on November 23, 2013.

(2) Even if the Defendant had a pet dog owned by another person, even though the 1 pet dog and 2 pet dog are not the same pet dog as that of the 1 pet dog, the Defendant believed that the 2 pet dog are the same pet dog as that of the 1 pet dog, which is owned by himself, and thus, there was no awareness of the her pet dog as to the 1 pet dog.

B. Even if the Defendant was found guilty of an unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s sentence (the fine of KRW 500,000) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the identity of the 1 pet dog and the 2 pet dog, first of all, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant purchased the 1 pet dog from the victim on September 28, 2013, and the contract prepared at the time of purchase stating that "the part stated as the 15th 15th 2013 (in 2003, it is obvious that it is a clerical error) is the female of July 15, 2013" (Evidence No. 14 of the record, ② the defendant left the above pet dog to the victim on September 30, 2013 for the treatment of the 1 pet dog and the 1 pet dog, and again took the above pet dog to observe the pet dog on October 1, 2013, and the defendant did not get the above pet dog to undergo a diagnosis of the pet dog on July 15, 2013."