High School Student Bitten on Finger in Dog Fight Files Complaint Against Opposing Owner [Seocho-dong Legal Story]
On the afternoon of February 17th, a citizen is walking with their pet dog in Seoul Forest, Seongdong-gu, Seoul. The photo is unrelated to the article content.
View original image[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] On July 22, 2020, at 6 p.m., a man in his 50s, Mr. A, was walking his medium-sized dog, his companion dog, in a park in Gwanak-gu, Seoul, when he sat down on a bench to take a break. The companion dog was tied to the bench with a 2-meter-long leash.
At that time, high school student Mr. B (then 17 years old) passed by near Mr. A with his own companion dog. The two dogs, who usually growled at each other whenever they met, started barking at each other again that day. Eventually, the dogs clung to each other and started fighting. During the process of breaking up the fight, Mr. B was bitten on the finger and injured. Mr. B’s side filed a complaint, claiming, "We were bitten by Mr. A’s companion dog."
Mr. B testified to the investigative authorities, "I was walking my companion dog on a leash, but Mr. A’s companion dog ran up and bit my hand and my dog’s neck." On the other hand, Mr. A said, "Mr. B’s companion dog was not on a leash and ran at high speed and bit my dog. I pulled the leash to stop the fight."
The prosecution applied the charge of "violation of the Animal Protection Act" against Mr. A, arguing that he violated the duty of safety measures by loosening the leash and sent him to criminal trial. At that time, Article 12 of the Enforcement Rules of the Animal Protection Act stipulated that "when going out with a registered animal, a leash or chest strap must be used, or a transport device must be used," and "the length must be such that the animal can be effectively controlled and does not harm others."
The first trial court acquitted Mr. A. It stated, "It is difficult to consider that the act of wearing a leash but not managing it properly falls under the element of 'not wearing a leash.'" It added, "Applying the provisions on violation of safety measures under the Animal Protection Act to punish in this case is an excessively broad interpretation and is not appropriate, nor can it be concluded that it was the legislator’s intention."
Furthermore, it said, "The revised Enforcement Rules of the Animal Protection Act clearly define the leash length as within 2 meters and newly establish safety measures according to the location. Such revisions of penal provisions are fundamentally a legislative issue."
The prosecution appealed the first trial verdict. Additionally, it added a preliminary charge requesting punishment of Mr. A for "negligent injury." Mr. A expressed strong regret. He argued, "I have been dragged to trial for nearly two years. I do not understand why the prosecutor maintains the indictment based solely on the victim’s one-sided story repeated over and over. The prosecutor must specifically prove what I did wrong."
According to the court on the 19th, the Criminal Appeals Division 1-2 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Maeng Hyun-moo) recently acquitted Mr. A, as in the first trial.
The appellate court stated, "The leash worn by the defendant at the time was 2 meters long, which falls within the usual length range, and it was tied to a bench in the pavilion, so it cannot be considered that the leash was loosened."
Moreover, "In this case, where an accurate investigation of the victim’s movement path and the exact range of the companion dog’s behavior was not conducted, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant needed to take active measures such as tying the leash shorter or isolating the dog tied to the bench in the pavilion," and it rejected the prosecutor’s preliminary charge. Since Mr. B could see Mr. A’s companion dog upon entering the park, he could have sufficiently avoided them.
Hot Picks Today
"Samsung and Hynix Were Once for the Underachievers"... Hyundai Motor Employee's Lament
- Samsung Enterprise Labor Union: "We Respect Court’s Injunction Decision... General Strike to Proceed on the 21st as Planned"
- "Was This Delicious Treat Enjoyed Only by Koreans?"... The K-Dessert Captivating Japan
- “Thirty Lettuce Heads Stolen”: Surge in Urban Garden Crop Thefts Prompts Action from Violent Crimes Detectives
- "That? It's Already Stashed" Nightlife Scene Crosses the Line [ChwiYak Nation] ③
In particular, "It has not been clearly identified which dog bit the victim’s finger," the appellate court added.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.