"Setting Fires with Torches, Beating Animals"... Why Criticism Persists That Animal Abuse Punishments Fail Despite Strengthening

Animal Abuse Increasing Every Year... Over 1,000 Animal Abuse Offenders in 2020
Criticism Persists Over 'Lenient' Punishments Despite Tougher Penalties
Proving 'Intent' Key to Punishing Perpetrators
Animal Rights Groups "Disappointed by Light Punishments... Severe Penalties Should Set Precedents"

As the cruelty of animal abuse cases increases day by day, there is growing criticism of the low levels of punishment for the abusers. Photo by Asia Economy DB

[Asia Economy Reporter Park Hyun-joo] Cruel animal abuse cases, such as burning stray cats alive or announcing large-scale killings, are occurring one after another. Although penalties for abuse have been strengthened through amendments to the Animal Protection Act, there are still criticisms that the actual level of punishment does not correspond to public sentiment or the cruelty of the crimes. In particular, animal rights organizations criticize that abusers avoid punishment by exploiting the difficulty of proving 'intentional abuse.'

On the 12th, the animal rights organization Kara announced that it had filed a complaint on the 7th against Mr. A, who posted a video online showing a cat being burned alive and cruelly abused. At the end of last month, Mr. A uploaded videos and photos depicting cruel abuse of cats on the DC Inside 'Yaongi Gallery.' These included photos of a cat with severe burns on its face and videos of a cat trapped in a capture cage with its body on fire, suffering in pain.

This sparked public outrage, and a petition urging a thorough investigation was posted on the Blue House's National Petition Board. However, Mr. A disregarded this and even threatened, saying, "I will kill as many cats as the number of petition supporters," showing a brazen attitude. As of 3 PM on the 14th, the petition posted on the 3rd had garnered over 140,000 signatures.

On the 7th, a man in his 40s, Mr. B, who adopted 21 poodles nationwide and cruelly abused and killed them, was sent to the prosecution without detention. He stated his motive as "hatred toward poodles" and abused and killed the dogs in cruel ways, such as forcibly feeding them water to suffocate them or hitting them with a blunt object, then abandoning the bodies.

The dogs' appearance during their lifetime, which Mr. B adopted, abused, killed, and abandoned. Photo by Gunsan Stray Cat Care Instagram

◆ Animal abuse increasing every year... Punishments remain 'minimal' even when 'intentionality' is proven

The number of animal abuse offenders is increasing every year. According to the 'Status of Violations of the Animal Protection Act over the Past 11 Years,' submitted by the National Police Agency to Justice Party lawmaker Lee Eun-joo and released last September, a total of 992 violations of the Animal Protection Act occurred in 2020, with 1,014 people arrested. The number of animal abuse offenders steadily increased from 78 in 2010 to 962 in 2019, surpassing 1,000 for the first time.

However, the level of punishment is significantly low compared to the increased number of abuse cases. In the same statistics, among 4,358 offenders caught over 10 years for violating the Animal Protection Act, 2,751 (63.1%) were sent for prosecution with an indictment opinion. Of these, only 5 were actually detained.

Some attribute the increase in animal abuse to the 'low level of punishment.' Although there is already a national consensus that animal abuse should be severely punished, criticism remains that abusers are rarely punished. Even when punishment occurs, many point out that the severity does not meet public sentiment.

According to the '2021 Public Awareness Survey on Directions for Animal Welfare Policy Improvement' conducted by the Animal Welfare Research Institute AWARE on 2,000 citizens on August 30, 96.8% of respondents said, "The standards for punishing animal abuse should be strengthened." Other responses included △ "The ownership of abused animals should be revoked from abusers" (97.3%) △ "Abusers should be banned from raising other animals for a certain period" (98.3%).

A puppy inside a glass partition at a pet shop in Seoul city. The photo is unrelated to specific expressions in the article. Photo by Mun Ho-nam munonam@

However, these statistics are from before the enforcement of the amended Animal Protection Act in February last year. As cruel animal abuse cases continued, penalties for abuse were strengthened. According to the amended Animal Protection Act, those who cause death to animals by cruel methods such as hanging can be sentenced to up to 3 years imprisonment or a fine of up to 30 million won, instead of the previous 'up to 2 years imprisonment or a fine of up to 20 million won.'

However, there are many criticisms that even the strengthened penalties are not applied in actual law enforcement. When animal abuse cases go to court, the issue of 'intentionality of abuse' is crucial, but proving intent is difficult. A man in his 50s from Okcheon, Chungbuk, who tied a dog’s leash to a vehicle bumper and dragged it about 5 km until it died, was acquitted in May last year due to lack of evidence proving intent.

In another similar case, a light punishment was given because intent was not proven. Mr. C, who was charged with tying a dog to the rear of a vehicle with a rope and dragging it about 5 km to death on a road in Sangju, Gyeongbuk, reportedly stated during police investigation that he "tied the dog to the car to exercise it." The dog dragged behind the car could not keep up with the vehicle’s speed and suffered fatal injuries, including abrasions and skin being peeled off on its front legs and both shoulders.

At that time, the court sentenced Mr. C to 4 months imprisonment with a 1-year probation in January last year. The court stated, "The defendant shows little respect for life and the crime is not light," but also noted, "The defendant admitted guilt and took the dog to a veterinary hospital, indicating no initial intent to kill," as reasons for sentencing.

◆ Animal rights groups: "Even if proving intent is difficult, there should be minimum sentencing standards"

Animal rights groups evaluate that the police and judiciary lack awareness of animal rights. Cho Hee-kyung, head of Animal Freedom Union, said, "The strengthening of the Animal Protection Act reflects the heightened civic awareness of animal rights and the recognition that animal abuse is a serious crime. However, it is regrettable that the police and judiciary still cannot keep up with this. In cases of cruel animal abuse, the maximum penalty under current law should be applied, and such precedents should be established to raise awareness about animal abuse."

Cho emphasized that even when intent to abuse cannot be proven, at least minimum punishment should be imposed. He said, "In animal abuse cases, indirect intent is always an issue, and of course, judicial judgment can be ambiguous. However, regardless of intent, if serious injury or death is caused to an animal, there should be minimum sentencing standards corresponding to that."

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