All
| TITLE | Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2023GoDan2750, dated Jan. 17, 2024: Appeal [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 Defendant B, the owner of the victim horse, Party A, as well as the head of the drama equestrian team, proposed a “filming method in which a rope is tied to the front legs of the horse and the end of the rope is held and supported by people, then the horse is made to run to cause it to fall forward” in order to film a falling horse scene, and Defendant C, the martial arts director of the drama, and Defendant D, the producer in charge of the drama, agreed thereto and sequentially conspired to proceed with the filming of the falling horse scene using the aforementioned filming method, and subsequently, using the aforementioned method, they caused Party A to fall, resulting in its neck being broken by the impact, so Defendants B, C, and D conspired to inflict physical pain on Animal A and abuse it using tools in a cruel manner, despite it not being a necessary method for breeding or training animals, and broadcasting company Defendant E was indicted for the aforementioned violation by Defendant D, its producer, regarding the broadcasting company’s business. In such a case, the court held that Defendant B, C, and D’s filming of the falling horse scene as above constitutes an act prohibited by Article 8(2)4 of the former Animal Protection Act, and that there was intent, albeit conditional, to violate the Animal Protection Act. | |
