Housing Gyeongnam ITE COM

Reference domicile Jin-si

The term "medical treatment for animals" under Article 10 of the Veterinarians Act refers to the act of treating animals or preventing animal diseases in accordance with the definition of animal diagnostic and treatment business under Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the same Act. It is reasonable to interpret the term "medical treatment for animals" as the act of preventing or treating diseases caused by diagnosis, diagnosis, prescription, medication, or surgical treatment with the experience and function based on veterinary professional knowledge. And Article 1 of the Veterinarians Act does not stipulate the life and safety of animals, but only provides the term "the contribution to the development of livestock industry and the improvement of public health" for the purpose of legislation, and Article 3 of the Veterinarians Act provides that the term "the act of treating animals or preventing animal diseases" is defined as the scope of a veterinarian's business, and Article 10 of the Veterinarians Act provides that the term "the act of treating animals and the sanitary inspection for livestock products" shall not be defined as the scope of an act of a veterinarian or a person who is not a veterinarian's business.

In light of the various circumstances, in a case where an act of inflicting an injury on an animal may be deemed an abuse by social norms, such an act shall not be interpreted by expanding the meaning of the diagnosis and treatment or prevention of an animal under the Veterinarians Act to include an act that may harm the life or safety of an animal, or an act that is incidental to the diagnosis and treatment or that the function of an animal is fulfilled.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, even if the defendant's act of injecting microchips into the body using microchips constitutes an act that may cause harm to health and safety, the court below's decision that affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the act of injecting microchips does not constitute medical treatment as provided by the Veterinarians Act is justified and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Gin-tae

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn

Justices Cha Han-sung