Whether the act of injecting groundwater by force to increase weight to the dead cattle that has been slaughtered and dismantled to a considerable extent constitutes the act of duplicating livestock under Article 21(1)2 and Article 11 of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act (negative)

The livestock cattle subject to the prohibition of abuse, which is punished by Article 21(1)2 of the Livestock Products Sanitary Treatment Act, is limited to the live animals (life), and the act of killing an animal is not included in the case of the death of an animal because it has already been slaughtered and has lost all its daily functions, such as food consumption, growth, fire extinguishing, and excreta, and has no existence of life. Therefore, it does not constitute a duplicative abuse that is punished by Articles 21(1)2 and 11 of the said Act.

Article 21, Article 11, of the Livestock Products Sanitary Treatment Act

Defendant 1 and four others

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be included in the number of detention days prior to the rendering of this judgment, and 85 days shall be included in the sentence against the Defendants, and 55 days shall be included in the sentence against the Defendants.

However, from the date of the conclusion of this judgment, the execution of each of the above punishment against the defendants is suspended for two years from the date of each judgment.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendants are acquitted.

Defendant 1, 2, and 4 are operators of freezing vehicles and Defendant 3 and 5 are operators of the slaughterhouse.

1. Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5 conspired with Nonindicted 1 and 2 to slaughter and dismantle a lawsuit in a large quantity, unlike the provisions for injecting groundwater immediately after the slaughter of the lawsuit with Nonindicted 1 and 2. On January 15, 1992, Defendant 3, etc., in the course of slaughter and dismantling the lawsuit by Defendant 3, etc. at a slaughterhouse located (trade name omitted) around 09:30 on January 15, 1992, in the course of the slaughter and dismantling of the lawsuit by Defendant 3, etc., the following provisions were followed: (a) cutting of a bridge in the air; (b) cutting of a bridge in the middle part of the lawsuit; and (c) cutting down the wall by demolishing it in the middle part of the lawsuit; (d) dismantling it in the middle part of the lawsuit; and (e) removing the breaking of the wall in the middle part of the lawsuit in the order to prevent water from injecting it into the middle part of the lawsuit; and (e) removing and dismantling the breaking method of the wall without cutting.

2. Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 5 conspired with Nonindicted 3 and 4 to slaughter and dismantle a lawsuit in a way different from the provision for mass injection of groundwater immediately after the slaughter of the lawsuit, and Defendant 1, 2, and 5, such as slaughter and dismantling of the lawsuit in violation of the method of slaughter and dismantling in order to force the spambling of the lawsuit in the same manner as in paragraph 1, at the same place as in paragraph 1, around 09:30 on January 29, 1992; Defendant 3 from September 1, 1991 to January 29, 192 to from July 20, 1991 to January 29, 1992; Defendant 4 to January 29, 1992, respectively, slaughtered and dismantled the lawsuit in violation of the method of slaughter at an average of 3 miles per day from January 29, 192 to September 29, 199.

1. Each statement to the same effect as the defendants' decision in court

1. Each statement made to the same effect as the facts indicated in the judgment among the Defendants and Nonindicted 5 suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor and the judicial police assistant.

1. Each statement written by a prosecutor and a judicial police assistant to the same effect as the facts stated in the judgment in each written statement concerning Nonindicted 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 prepared;

1. Each existing number of two plastic calls (Evidence Nos. 1 and 2) seized;

1. Relevant provisions of the Punishment Act for Action

inclusive, Article 22 subparag. 2 and 7 of the Livestock Products Sanitary Treatment Act, Article 22 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

1. Article 57 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 62(1) and 51 of the Criminal Act (Defendant 2 and Kim Jin are first offenders; all other Defendants were not previous and previous, and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the period and depth of the crime, and the number of days pending trial, etc. are considered)

Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants, the summary of the facts charged as to the abuse of the livestock industry

1. Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5 conspired with Nonindicted 1 and 2 to acquire profits by inserting groundwater in large volume immediately after the slaughter of the lawsuit with Nonindicted 1 and 2;

around 09:30 on January 15, 1992, the Defendant 3 et al., slaughtered the cattle at a slaughterhouse (trade name omitted) with a view to artificially increasing the weight of cattle at the slaughterhouse (trade name omitted) for the purpose of gaining unjust profits, were to increase the weight or capacity of cattle at a level of 20km by compulsorily inserting groundwater by inserting it into the boom of the cattle slaughtered with 2.5 cm diameter in diameter, which was prepared under the status of maintaining the stringer's body temperature, into the breath of the breath of the cattle slaughtered with the breath of the 20km.

2. Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 5 conspired to acquire profits by inserting groundwater in large quantity immediately after slaughter with Nonindicted 3, 4, and immediately after slaughter of the cattle, Defendant 5 et al. at the above location: (a) forced slaughter of the cattle to increase the weight or capacity of the cattle at 20 km; (b) Defendant 1, 2, and 5 were found to have been slaughtered at the 3rd time from the beginning of September 191 to January 29, 192; (c) Defendant 1, 2, and 5 were found to have been slaughtered at the 2nd time of burning of the cattle at the 5th time; (d) Defendant 4 was found to have been slaughtered at the 5th time of the slaughter of the cattle, and thus, Defendant 1 was found to have been slaughtered at the 2nd time of the death of the cattle at the 5th time; and (e) Defendant 2 was found to have been slaughtered at the 2nd time of the slaughter or 3rd capacity of the cattle.

Article 11 of the Sanitary Control of Livestock Products Act provides that no one shall increase weight or volume of livestock for the purpose of benefit by forcing it to drink water. Article 21(1)2 of the same Act provides that a person who abused livestock against the above provision shall be punished. Here, the term "livestock cattle" means cattle, horses, sheep (including sheep), pigs (including cattle), chickens, ducks, and other animals as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In addition, Article 21 subparag. 3 of the same Act provides that cattle, dried meat, internal organs, and other parts of livestock for food shall be defined as cattle, dried meat, internal organs, and other parts of livestock for food. In full view of the above provisions, the living cattle subject to the prohibition of abuse under Article 21(1)2 of the Livestock Products Sanitary Treatment Act shall be limited to the living cattle (which is subject to the punishment of imprisonment without prison labor) and shall not be included in the act of death or injury of animals, such as death or injury. Thus, it shall not be included in the principle of no punishment without the law.

Thus, the Defendants’ act of injecting groundwater by force against the dead cattle already slaughtered and dismantled to a considerable degree as in the instant case, aside from the fact that the Defendants’ act of injecting groundwater is an act of social criticism, does not constitute a diversative act of punishing the Defendants under Articles 21(1)2 and 11 of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act. As such, among the facts charged against the Defendants, duplicating abuse constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime or it does not constitute a crime, and thus, the Defendants are acquitted pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Jae- Jae