The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the reasons for appeal (fact-finding) that the defendant keys is tendencying to recognize the third party as a larceny when the third party enters the Kackter.

At the time of the instant case, the said dog was in the inside of the camera while combining the lines of 1m length. However, the victim E neglected the Defendant’s warning and led to the said dog while stimulatinging the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant did not neglect his duty of care to prevent the said dog from sustaining visitors.

However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above argument by the defendant is without merit, since the facts charged in this case can be fully acknowledged.

① The instant site is a DNA lottery room operated by the Defendant, where many unspecified customers enter the instant site.

Even on July 24, 2012, the above opening had been aware that there was an injury by asking L hand who entered the Kabter for the purpose of the Kabter (at the time when the defendant was issued a non-prosecution disposition), and the defendant seems to have been well aware that there was a habition of the nearest opening of the above opening.

Nevertheless, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not take any measures necessary to prevent the victim from sustaining the said dog, such as having covered the said dog or putting the dog over, etc.

(B) At the time of the instant case, the victim stated at the police that the said dog was not covered by the said dog at the time of the instant case, and that the said dog was not hot or humped to the said dog (Evidence No. 14 page), and F stated to the same effect at the court of the lower court at the same time (Evidence No. 14 page).

(공판기록 제34~35면). ③ K는 원심 법정에서 "피해자가 개에게 물리기 전에 개에 대해서 ‘된장을 바르면 어쩐다’는 이야기만 들었습니다....