logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.08.21 2019고단2959
동물보호법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Notwithstanding the fact that it is not necessary for raising, training, etc. of animals, no one shall give any physical pain to, or inflict any injury on, an animal in a cruel manner, such as using implements, in violation of such methods, without justifiable grounds.

Nevertheless, at around 05:50 on May 16, 2019, the Defendant driven the said car at a speed of 15 to 17 km and led the said dog to be forced according to the said car, while connecting the neck of the dog (hereinafter “stoppy”) raised by the Defendant to the back part of the F 2.2km in the section of approximately 2.2km from the roads near the Gunsan-si B to the roads near the E-si in the Gunsan-si.

As a result, even though it is not necessary for animal raising and training, the Defendant committed a cruel act, such as using a cruel motor vehicle, without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written accusation;

1. A report on investigation (verification of vehicle driving distance);

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Punishment of Criminal Crimes and Articles 46 (2) 1 and 8 (2) 4 of the Selection of Punishment of Animal Protection Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order does not mean that the nature of the crime is less severe, and even if the defendant had a different link to the motor vehicle in order to take care of or exercise the defendant's assertion, it seems that the act of the above act on the road along which the motor vehicle passes could cause danger to the body or life of the animal.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, and the defendant did not commit the crime of this case with intent to attract animals in bad faith.

arrow