Residential Ulsan

Reference domicile

The defendant is the president of the Ulsanbuk-gu Housing Association of 2000 local housing association which has 00 billion won as a project site. The above "the local housing association of 000 local housing association" selected the c comprehensive construction (ju) as a new construction project site for 264 households, but it is difficult to take part in the project due to the low credit rating of C comprehensive construction (ju). The defendant raised a complaint against C comprehensive construction (ju).

No person shall engage in any abusive act that causes physical pain or injury to an animal without justifiable grounds prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, such as necessity for veterinary treatment against an animal, damage to human life, body, or property due to an animal, etc. Nevertheless, the defendant shall not engage in any abusive act that causes physical pain or injury to the livestock industry.

1. In the presence of the Special Self-Governing City Office in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do, the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province Office in the middle of October 2018, the head of Jindo-gu, the head of the Dong-do Special Self-Governing Office in charge of the field of the construction of the aforesaid C General Construction (States) is unable to take a boom of the Jindo dog that he/she raises.

After having to do so, 3 to 4 times of drinking, 3 to 4 times of walking, 1 to 4 times of launch, and she taken a bath and head. On October 2018, 2018, at the same place as Paragraph 1, the head of the Jindo dog could not get out of his/her place, 3 to 4 times of walking and taken a bath and head of the dog. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24179, Oct. 2, 2018>

3. On November 2018, in the same place as the end of the mid-term economic paragraph 1, the head of the Jindo dog could not get out of the dog by generating a neck line, and the head of the dog, walking 3 to 4 times along the ray, was taken.

4. On December 2018, 2018, a police officer took the brupt of the same Jindo dog at the same place as that of paragraph 1 of this Article, thereby preventing him/her from taking a brush, and then taking the brush and head of the 3 to 4 occasions of walking the brush.

5. On December 2018, in the same place as the end of the mid-term economic paragraph 1, the head of the Jindo dog could not take a shoulder line to the same Jindo dog, and then the head of the dog 3 to 4 times, e.g., the head of the dog was taken.

6. On January 15, 2019, around 15:00, at the same place as that of paragraph 1, the head and title of Jindo dogs were taken as follows: (a) each item 4-5 time out of the same Jindo dogs; (b) the walking 7-time in the ray; and (c) the head and title of Jindo dogs were prevented from taking the ray.

Accordingly, the defendant given physical pain to the animal without any justifiable reason and abused the animal. The summary of evidence is the summary of evidence.

1. The legal statement of the defendant

1. The protocol of statement of the police against Kim-ju;

1. A statement of his/her testimony;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the receipt of civil petitions with national newspapers and civil petitions, on-site photographs, closure photographs, images, and photographs storage CDs;

1. Relevant legal provisions and selection of punishment on the facts of crime;

Articles 46(2)1 and 8(2)4 of the former Animal Protection Act (Amended by Act No. 16544, Aug. 27, 2019);

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

On the grounds of the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act 1. The crime of this case was committed on the following grounds: (a) the representative of the Defendant, the president of the regional housing association, was constantly abused the damaged animals for about six months. The crime and motive were derived from retaliation or brusation against the host; (b) the period and frequency of the crime were not repeated; (c) the damaged animals were not sexual intercourse; (d) approximately four to five months after their birth; and (e) the damaged animals were strong; and (e) the method and attitude of the Defendant’s criminal act identified in the CD images taken up by the Defendant were considerably violent and cruel; and (e) the possibility of criticism is high. Even after the investigation agency recognized the police’s criminal act, the Defendant did not appear to have committed a serious violation and thus, did not constitute a criminal act against himself/herself at the stage of investigation.

2. In addition, in regard to the reasons why the responsibility for the crime of animal abuse, such as the facts stated in the criminal facts in the judgment of the defendant, should not be applied to the crimes of animal abuse, and the reason why the defendant's intention should be subject to more strict criminal liability on the act of animal abuse, are as follows.

A. Although the perception of an animal is clear in the past, it is limited to deeming that the animal is only food and clothing means or resources for animals, and this is also equivalent to treating the animal as an object of this right under the Civil Act. However, since the 1970s, the Western society centered on the 1970s, it began with ebbblance to protect the animal as a life body and further recognize the animal as a subject of one right, which led to the UNESCO Universal Declaration of the Rights to Animals in 1978. The UNESCO Declaration of the Rights to Animals limited to deeming that all animals have the right to equality in the ecosystem, and that all animals have no rights to life, respect all animals, and that the rights to life of animals have been treated as an unreasonably modified basic law, and that the concept of animal rights has not been expressed as one subject of human dignity and has been expressed in the UNESCO Declaration of the Rights to Animals in 1978.

B. Although there are no progressive discussions on animal abuse in Korea, there is no awareness that it is necessary to protect animals as a human body. It appears to be the enactment of the Animal Protection Act in 191. Article 1 of the Animal Protection Act also declares that it is necessary to protect the life and safety of animals and contribute to the emotional development of the people through the prevention of abuse against animals and thus, it should be protected as one of the animal dignity. The Act on Animal Protection has to strengthen the level of animal protection through several amendments to the Act on the Protection of Animals for the purpose of protecting the life and body of animals and enhancing the punishment of animals on behalf of the people, such as imprisonment with labor for not more than one year or for not more than two years or for not more than 20 million won.

D. Furthermore, the reason for preventing animal abuse is that it constitutes an act of violence and cruel to the existence of the most weak social or ecologically weak. At least, if it is assumed that companion animals are included in our society’s members, such as a dog, dog, etc., living in our society, it is the most present position in our society. Animal abuse can be seen as a rash or discriminatory act against the existence of the lowest status in our society. It can be said that it is necessary for our society to recognize such rash or discriminatory act or to assess its illegality from the point of view that it goes beyond our society’s moral sense and moral sense that it goes beyond our society to protect and protect human life and body as a whole. The reason for preventing animal abuse is that it goes beyond our society’s duty to protect and protect life and body, and that it can be said that it is necessary for our society to protect and protect human beings.

E. In full view of the above contents, the Defendant’s crime of this case constitutes an act of life awareness committed in a state where respect for the body of life is weak, and thus, a strict liability should be imposed. However, the prosecutor’s old punishment of the Defendant (2 million won) against the Defendant is determined to be insufficient in light of the nature of the crime of this case and the possibility of criticism, and the sentence of imprisonment to the Defendant is determined to be appropriate in light of the nature of the crime of this case and the possibility of criticism, and the aforementioned various circumstances.

3. However, there is a statement that the defendant's mistake is against the defendant's mistake in this Court, and when an agreement is reached with the host that manages the damaged animals, that the dog owner expressed his intention not to punish the defendant, and that there is no other penal power except that the defendant has been sentenced once to a fine due to driving under drinking, etc., the circumstances favorable to the defendant shall be considered in favor of the defendant, and other circumstances specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined in accordance with the order.

Every animal at his or her own idea of animal piracy shall be equal and higher than that of a human being.

all kinds of discrimination, like race discrimination and gender discrimination, are allowed, referring to that they cannot be viewed as being in value.

by asserting that it should not be the basic interest of animals and claiming the basic interest of animals as equal to the basic interest of human beings.

The purpose was to include animals in a moral community.

2) The original text can be confirmed at www.sadaw.eu/unitco.html.