The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not neglect the management of the deep-sea, and the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant did not neglect the management of the deep-sea.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On June 21, 2016, at around 15:20, the Defendant: (a) took safety measures, such as laying a brush (name: choco) that the Defendant had been raised for about four years on the road of the Defendant’s operation of Yansan-gu, Yandong-gu, Seoul; and (b) placing the brush in the fence to prevent attack on people or other animals; and (c) by negligence, the Defendant taken measures to prevent the attack on people or other animals; and (d) taken measures to protect the brut d (n, 49 years of age) and brut flus, which were flad with the victim’s right bridge to the right side of the victim; and (d) took measures to protect the brut from the attack of the brush; and (e) approximately three weeks of treatment of approximately three weeks of the victim’s brush and the inside spa and the inside.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court’s judgment, the lower court did not have any reasonable doubt that the Defendant was in charge of the instant garment, and that the Defendant was negligent in managing the instant garment, thereby causing injury to the victim.

The decision was determined.

1) The victim has consistently maintained in the investigative agency “in the clothes of the defendant, the height of the defendant in this case was seen once, and the defendant is fine for the defendant to raise the height of the defendant.”

’ 고 물어보았더니 피고인이 ‘ 말썽 안 피우고 조용하다’ 고 말하기도...