In a case where Defendant (the president of a regional housing association) was indicted for violation of the Animal Protection Act on the ground that he was indicted for violation of the Animal Protection Act on the ground that: (a) the crime committed by Defendant was committed on the ground that he was committed on the ground that he did not have any awareness of respect for the body of life, and was committed on the ground that he did not have strict criminal liability on the ground that he fell under the act of life awareness of respect for the body of life, and thus constitutes an act of life competition conducted under the state of weak respect for the body of life, thereby making it difficult for the construction company Party A to proceed with its business due to low credit rating; and (b) caused him to go through the neck of the dog (the dog and Jindo dog) that he raised a field manager of the company A

The defendant, the president of a regional housing association, was prosecuted for violation of the Animal Protection Act on the ground that the defendant, who was the head of a regional housing association, committed a violation of the Act on the Protection of Animal, on the ground that he was prosecuted for a violation of the Act on the Protection of Animal, because he was found to have abused physical suffering by taking the neck of the dog (or dog and Jindo dog) that the above association selected as the head of the apartment construction company Gap as the head of the apartment construction company was under the low credit rating and caused to be difficult to proceed with the project, and by taking the neck of the dog (the dog and

In light of the fact that the crime history and motive were derived from retaliation or originally committed against the owner of animals, the period and frequency of the crime continues to have been committed for about three months without single-time, and that the damaged animal is strong enough for about four to five months, and the method and form of the crime identified in the image of the defendant appears to be considerably violent and cruel, as well as the movement that requires protection of animals as a life body and recognition of animals as a single subject of right is not a full-time, and that the act should be recognized as an act of animal abuse because it constitutes an act of animal abuse because it constitutes an act of animal abuse because it constitutes an act of animal abuse, and thus, it should be considered that the act of animal abuse should be recognized as one subject of right to life, and that it constitutes an act of animal abuse, which is an act of animal abuse, and that it should not be recognized as an act of animal abuse because it constitutes an act of animal abuse, which is an act of animal abuse, and that it should be recognized as an act of animal abuse and its legal purpose and character should be sufficiently reflected in the legislative structure and value of animals.

Article 1 of the former Animal Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8282, Jan. 26, 2007); Article 1 of the former Animal Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1095, Aug. 4, 2011); Article 1 of the former Animal Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15502, Mar. 20, 201); Articles 1, 2 subparag. 1, 8(2)4, and 46(2)1 of the former Animal Protection Act (Amended by Act No. 1654, Aug. 27, 2019)

Defendant

Jinho et al.

Attorney Cho Jong-chul

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant is the president of the “○○○○ Housing Association” which has a day of Ulsan ( Address omitted) as a project site.

The above “○○○○ Housing Association” selected Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1 as a new construction contractor for 264 apartment units, but it was difficult to continue its business due to the low credit rating of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1

No person shall commit abuse against an animal without justifiable grounds prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, such as necessity for veterinary treatment, harm to human life, body, and property caused by animals. Nevertheless, the defendant shall not commit abuse against an animal.

1. On October 2018, in front of the Gulsan ( Address omitted)’s site office for Nonindicted Co. 1, 2018, Nonindicted Co. 1 prevented a person responsible for the site of the said Nonindicted Co. 1 from leaving the Jindo dog, which was raised by Nonindicted Co. 2, and then 3-4 times from drinking, 3-4 times from drinking, and 3-4 times from walking the dog and head.

2. On October 2018, at the same place as Paragraph 1, at the end of the end of the year, the head of the Jindo dog could not get out of the dog by generating a shoulder line, and then taken three to four walking the dog and the head of the dog.

3. On November 2018, 2018, Police Officers took a bath line on the same Jindo dog at the same place as that of paragraph 1, thereby preventing him/her from taking a bath line, and then taken three to four walking rays and heading.

4. On December 2018, 2018, a police officer, at the same place as paragraph 1, was unable to take a brush line for the same Jindo dog at a place, and followed the timber and head of the 3 to 4 occasions of walking.

5. On December 2018, 2018, Police Officers took a bath line on the same Jindo dog at the same place as that of paragraph 1, thereby preventing him/her from taking a bath line, and then taken three to four walking ray and heading.

6. On January 15, 2019, around 15:00, at the same place as Paragraph 1, the head and neck of the Jindo dog were taken in each item 4-5 times with respect to the same Jindo dog, 7-time walking with a beam, and her head and neck.

Accordingly, the defendant abused animals by causing physical pain without any justifiable reason.

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement of Nonindicted Party 2

1. A written statement of Nonindicted 3 (Bags)

1. National newspapers, receipt of civil petitions, field photographs, caps of abused images, images, and photographs storage CDs;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

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

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The crime of this case is committed by the Defendant, the president of a regional housing association, who is the president of a regional housing association, continuously abused the damaged animals raised by the representative for about three months. The details and motive of the crime were derived from retaliation or brutation against the host, the period and frequency of the crime, the amount of the crime, and the amount of the damaged animals, which are about four to five months after the birth, are not sexual dog. In particular, the crime of this case is very bad and is likely to be subject to criticism in light of the fact that the Defendant’s method and attitude of the crime identified in the CD images taken by the Defendant’s crime appears to be significantly violent and cruel. Although the Defendant recognized his own crime since an investigative agency, the Defendant stated that his crime was not merely an excessive and abused at the police investigation stage, and presented an attitude that did not recognize the seriousness or gravity of the crime of this case. Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

2. In addition, the criminal liability of animal abuse as stated in the judgment of the defendant, such as the facts constituting the crime of the crime, is not against the law, and the reasons for imposing more strict criminal liability on animal abuse as stated in the judgment of the defendant are as follows.

A. Although an animal is obviously a life body, the perception of the animal in the past was limited to deeming that it is merely a means or resource for planting and clothinging animals, and this is in line with our Civil Act, even if the animal is treated as an object of rights. However, since the 1970s, the 1970s, centering on the Western society, the movement to protect the animal as a life body and further recognize the animal as an object of rights, 1978, led to the UNESCO Declaration of the Rights to Animals. In the UNESCO Declaration of the Rights to Animals, all animals have the right to equality in existence in the ecosystem, and equal rights to the animal life of all animals have the right to respect, and the animal has no right to be treated as an object of rights, so-called "the right to life of animals" in the UNESCO Declaration of the Rights to Animals, i.e., the amendment of the UNESCO Declaration of the Rights to Animals, i.e., the right to life of animals, and the amendment of the UNESCO Declaration of the Rights to Animals.

B. Although at a progressive speed, there has been strengthened awareness that animal as a living body should be protected in Korea as the above discussions have been expanded, this has emerged by the enactment of the Animal Protection Act in 191. At the time of enactment, Article 1 of the Animal Protection Act declares that the purpose of this Act is to protect the life and safety of animals and contribute to the cultivation of people’s sentiments, such as respect for life, by preventing abusive acts against animals, thereby protecting the lives and safety of animals and contributing to the cultivation of people’s emotional health. The Animal Protection Act further enhances the level of animal protection through several amendments, and strengthens punishment for animal abuse in March 21, 2017 (i.e., imprisonment for not more than one year or for not more than two years, or for not more than two million won, or for not more than two million won, or for the purpose and content of the Act on the Protection of Animals as well as for the Protection of Animals to reflect the foregoing change in the legislative purpose and value of animals in line with the Act on the Protection of Animals and the Act on the Protection of Animals.

C. Also, animals should be aware of the existence of suffering as a body of life. In Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Animal Protection Act, animals are defined as vertebrates with developed ebrates that could cause suffering from suffering. In the event of an act of infringement on life or a cruel act against an animal, animals also express such pain or body and appeal for suffering from such pain, and continue to engage in cruel act without crying it is difficult to say that respect for the body of life is not weak or lacking. Therefore, animal abuse cannot be recognized as an act of damage, which is the object of the right to life, and in particular, it is reasonable to have more strict liability for the crime. Moreover, inasmuch as the act of cruelly and dynamicly treating animals constitutes serious alarm acts against the body of life, it is reasonable to readily conclude that there is no awareness that there is no cruel act against the life of an animal, which is an animal, and that there is no awareness that there is no cruel act among those who do so, such as the act of abuse on the body.

D. Furthermore, the reason for preventing animal abuse is that it constitutes violent and cruel acts against socially or ecologically weak existence. If it is assumed that companion animals, such as dogs and dogs satisfies, are included in our society’s members, 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 society. It can be said that our society permits such rash or discriminatory acts or lower illegality of such acts may be an anti-proof act that our society does not congested or cruelly recognize the seriousness of such acts. The very important reason for preventing animal abuse is that it is basically the respect for life and body suffering from pain, and that it goes beyond our society’s moral sense and moral sense that it is necessary to protect and protect humans and the minority, and that it is necessary to protect humans and the minority, and that it is necessary to protect humans and the minority.

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

3. However, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant made a statement that he/she is against his/her mistake in this court, the fact that the checks have expressed his/her intention not to punish the defendant, and that the defendant has no other penalty power except that sentenced once to a fine due to drunk driving, etc., when considering the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc.

Judges Yu Jong-woo

Note 1) Students who have contributed to the enhancement of awareness of animals drastically are referred to as phishing phishing phishing phishing phishing phishing phishing phishing phishing phishing phishing phishing phishing phishing phishing phishing that all animals shall be equal and shall not be deemed to have higher value than animals solely on the ground that they are humans. They argued that race discrimination and sex discrimination shall not be allowed as in the same way as that of race discrimination and sex discrimination. They sought to include animals in a moral community by asserting the basic interests

Note 2) The original text can be confirmed on www.sadw.eu/unsco.html.