Case Explained:This article breaks down the legal background, charges, and implications of Case Explained: Why animal abusers face lenient punishment in Korea – Legal Perspective
Soonmu, a cat adopted out by the animal rights group Nest, later raised abuse allegations against the owener after being told that the cat died while being force‑fed / Courtesy of Nest
In 2024, a soldier stationed at a military base in Daegu tortured a cat after it soiled his bedding. He strangled the animal with a combat boot lace and swung it by the neck. He then claimed to be “washing” the injured cat, forcing her to ingest water and hand sanitizer before confining it inside a washing machine that was running.
His punishment? A 1.5 million won ($1,050) fine.
The Daegu District Court cited the defendant’s confession, lack of a criminal record, and past volunteer work at a dog shelter as reasons for leniency.
This ruling is not an outlier. Despite public outrage, Korea’s judicial system continues to hand down light sentences for animal cruelty, according to legal experts and data analysis.
A recent case in Gongju, South Chungcheong Province, shows how far court rulings fall short of justice. A farm owner was sentenced to one year in prison after his negligence allowed a horse to escape, causing a fatal car accident. Investigators revealed that he had also starved eight horses to death.
However, the court mitigated the sentence — already near the eight-month legal minimum — by ruling that the horses likely “died of disease,” concluding that the defendant did not intend to kill them. Activists argued that the disease caused by total neglect is itself a form of abuse, criticizing the court for showing leniency to an offender who already had two prior convictions for similar levels of cruelty.
A severely underweight horse found at a farm in Gongju, South Chungcheong Province / Courtesy of Beagle Rescue Network
Rare indictments, even rarer prison terms
The data underscores this worrying trend. According to Choi Ji-soo, a lawyer with the animal rights group PNR, formal indictments for animal abuse remain rare.
Between 2010 and 2012, prosecutors did not formally indict a single Animal Protection Act violation. Since 2022, the formal indictment rate has hovered at around 5 percent, with the vast majority of cases ending in summary offenses or dropped charges.
A chart from a report by lawyer Choi Ji-soo from PNR, translated with artificial intelligence, shows the proportions of formal indictments, summary indictments and nonindictment decisions in Animal Protection Act cases. Courtesy of lawyer Choi Ji-soo
Court rulings follow the same pattern. An analysis of 171 rulings from May 2022 to June 2025 found that 60 of 84 defendants charged with killing an animal received fines — typically between 1 million won and 5 million won — while only four were sentenced to actual prison time. In cases involving injury, 71 of 87 defendants received fines, and all prison sentences were suspended, meaning no defendant served time in custody.
“While the proportion of fines is decreasing and prison sentences are rising slightly, the numbers show little meaningful change in how harshly courts punish offenders,” Choi said.
A chart from a report by lawyer Choi Ji-soo from PNR, translated with artificial intelligence, shows the proportions of fixed-term sentences, suspended prison sentences and monetary penalties. Courtesy of lawyer Choi Ji-soo
Flawed guidelines?
Rulings over the past three years show that judges have frequently cited factors such as a lack of prior convictions, advanced age, or volunteer work at animal shelters as grounds for mitigation.
The Supreme Court Sentencing Commission introduced sentencing guidelines for animal abusers last July to create clearer standards. However, critics argue the guidelines may reinforce leniency because they are based on past lenient rulings (2018–2023), potentially entrenching existing patterns of leniency.
“It is hard to understand why a one-time volunteer session at a shelter counts as a favorable factor in cases of severe abuse,” Choi said. “The courts should focus on whether the defendant genuinely recognizes the value of life.”
While the guidelines have minimized inconsistencies stemming from differing judicial awareness of animal rights, many argue that they should be tightened going forward to prevent even lighter penalties.
This article from the Hankook Ilbo, the sister publication of The Korea Times, is translated by a generative AI system and edited by The Korea Times.