동물보호법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
1. The crime of this case by the defendant cannot be deemed as an emergency evacuation because the present risk and reasonableness of the act of escape is not recognized, and it does not constitute an excessive escape in the sense of responsibility, since it cannot be deemed as an act due to fear, bad faith, entertainment, or confusion under a prone situation.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on emergency evacuation, which found the defendant not guilty.
2. Determination
A. In the case of "the act of killing an animal in a cruel manner" under Article 8 (1) 1 of the Animal Protection Act, it is reasonable to view that the act of killing an animal in a cruel manner without a justifiable and reasonable reason as the constituent elements of the act, as the court below properly decided in light of the purport of the legislation.
However, according to each evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant's act constitutes an act that constitutes the element of the crime of this case, since the defendant, who was sat, who was fat of the damage dog, committed an attack by the defendant, and was fat of the engine saw by using the engine saw, threatened the damage dog with the engine saw in order to drive away the damage dog, can be found to have caused the crime of this case. Thus, according to the above facts acknowledged, it is difficult to view the defendant's act as an act that constitutes the element
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted this point is justified.
B. According to each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant found the fact that the defendant was injured to the extent that the part of the damaged dog, such as the part of the damaged dog, is cut off by using the engine saw which he saw, while driving away the damaged gate (including the damaged dog), and it is judged that the act of damaging another person's property.
However, the issue of this case is whether there is a reason to justify the defendant's act.