The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the main point of the grounds for appeal is that the victim was not the injured party, the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case has erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below: (i) the victim appears to have been treated at the emergency room of the Red Cross Hospital immediately after the date of the occurrence of the case; (ii) according to the medical certificate for the victim, the victim entered an open room of at least 5 cm on the right side; and (iii) considering the victim's statement and shape as a result of the fact inquiry to the above hospital, it is highly probable that the above above address was treated in the opening; (iv) the victim stated that the dog raised by the defendant was in the investigative agency and the court of the court of the court; and (v) there is no special circumstance to suspect the credibility of the victim's statement; (v) although the victim returned to the above hospital after disinfection, and did not comply with the disease prevention vaccination; and (v) as a result of fact inquiry to the above hospital, the victim did not have any possibility of luminous disease, and most of the above hospital's disease prevention measures, and thus, the victim did not appear to have any error in the judgment below that it did not affect the defendant's oral.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.