"Jindo Dog Mother and Puppy Raised Well"... 70-Year-Old Eats Them Immediately After Adoption

6-Month Prison Sentence, Appeal Filed but Dismissed

A national petition urging the strengthening of the Animal Protection Act, claiming that two Jindo dogs were slaughtered less than two hours after being adopted. Photo by Cheongwadae National Petition Board capture.

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Bong-ju] A man in his 70s who was charged with slaughtering two Jindo dogs immediately after promising to raise them well following adoption appealed the first trial verdict but was once again sentenced to imprisonment.

The 1-3 Criminal Division of the Incheon District Court announced on the 23rd that it dismissed the appeal of Mr. A (75), who was sentenced to six months in prison in the first trial on charges of fraud and instigating violations of the Animal Protection Act, and upheld the original verdict.

Earlier, Mr. A received a mother Jindo dog and two puppies aged 1 to 3 years from the owner, Mr. B, promising, "I will raise them responsibly and not eat them."

However, it was investigated that he commissioned a slaughterhouse owner to slaughter the dogs within an hour.

This case became known after the owner posted on the Blue House National Petition Board in May last year with the title "They were slaughtered in less than two hours after being sent for adoption," and over 60,000 netizens agreed.

Mr. A had already promised his friend Mr. D (76) to hand over the Jindo dogs for 100,000 won a day before the adoption. It was understood that they planned to slaughter the dogs for consumption.

Mr. C, who received 120,000 won from Mr. A and Mr. D, slaughtered the two Jindo dogs. It was reported that there were other dogs nearby at the time.

This case became known when Mr. B posted a petition titled "They were slaughtered in less than two hours after being sent for adoption" on the Blue House National Petition Board in May last year.

In the petition, Mr. B said, "I was told to raise them well, and was reassured with 'Don't worry,' so I trusted and sent them," and urged, "Please strengthen the Animal Protection Act to prevent further victim dogs."

The appellate court stated, "The first trial seems to have sufficiently considered various circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the defendant in determining the sentence. There are no special circumstances to change the sentence after the first trial."

The court ruled, "The victim still suffers from severe mental distress due to the defendant's crime," and "The sentence in the first trial does not appear to be excessively harsh or unfair."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.