|
【Main Issues and Holdings】
[1] In a case where the owner, etc. of an animal commits an act for the purpose of or under the pretext of raising or training, whether such an act may constitute animal abuse prohibited under Article 10(2)4 Item (a) of the Animal Protection Act (affirmative)
Requirements for justification defenses and elements to be considered when determining whether an act that nominally violates the law is considered to be a justified act
[2] In a case where: (a) while the Defendant was training a 10-year old, nonaggressive dog with a small build, weighing 3.5kg, at a dog kindergarten that he operates, the Defendant restrained the dog between his legs, gripped its muzzle, and forcibly held the dog immobilized for 14 minutes, on the grounds that the dog bit his hand, thereby inflicting an injury of tooth avulsion on the dog; and (b) the Defendant was indicted for animal abuse and destruction and damage of the dog, which is the property of the owner, Party A, the case upholding the lower judgment, which held that the Defendant’s act exceeded the scope of ordinary raising and training recognized under generally accepted social norms, and inflicted pain and injuries on animal
|
