The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the defendant left a line, but the victim was not injured by the defendant's opening.

There is no fact that the victim was injured, or there is no causal relationship between the negligence of the defendant and the injury of the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged was around 11:00 on July 20, 2017, the Defendant was responsible for 2 matatat at the entry of the Heung-gu B apartment Cdong and Ddong, which he had placed at the night.

One of the aforesaid mats is a wild satatat (hereinafter “the instant matat”) and was asked by attacking other satats already in a mountain two times prior to the death, and there was a verbal warning as to the port of apartment residents and the duty of safety measures on the side of the apartment management office.

As such, there was a possibility to anticipate that the instant medical dog may cause damage, such as injury, to the owner of the return dog, in the event of an attack on another person's return dog due to wild character.

Therefore, the Defendant, the main owner of the instant dust dog, has a duty of care to wear a fat dog and a single fat dog, which can prevent the occurrence of danger, as safety measures to prevent the occurrence of danger, and to control the fat dog.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to perform his/her duty of care by wearing the instant medical dog without wearing the fat dog, wearing the general shoulder, putting him/her on the fat, putting him/her on the return dog of the victim E (the 44 years old, female) where the said fat dog is in mountain, and putting him/her on the victim’s fat dog in the course of attacking the fat dog, or going beyond the floor.