A 60-year-old man fined in the appeal trial for letting his dogs walk without leashes and causing injuries to a passerby

In the appeal trial, a 60-year-old dog owner was fined for allowing three unrestrained dogs to attack and injure a passerby.

On the 27th, the Chuncheon District Court Criminal Division 1 (Chief Judge Shim Hyun-geun) stated that it has sentenced Mr. A (68) to the same fine of 5 million won as in the original trial for violating the Animal Protection Act.

According to the indictment, Mr. A was walking a registered retriever and two mixed-breed dogs without leashes on a walking path in Hwacheon-gun, Gangwon Province, at 4:50 PM on November 30, 2023.

At that time, Mr. A’s dogs ran towards the dogs of Mr. B (56), who was passing by, and Mr. B suffered injuries to his hand, wrist, and chin while trying to stop the dogs.

Violation of owner's safety obligations and reasons for appeal

Mr. A was indicted for violating the obligations under the Animal Protection Act, which requires him to take safety measures, such as leashing registered dogs when going out.

The first trial court stated, "Considering that the victim and the defendant have not reached an agreement, as well as that the defendant has not shown remorse during the investigation and trial process, strict punishment is necessary."

In response, Mr. A argued that "his dogs did not bite the victim and that the victim merely fell while observing the dogs fighting," and appealed, citing a misinterpretation of facts and unjust sentencing.

Court's dismissal of the appeal

The appeal court did not accept Mr. A's claims.

The court pointed out, "Photos taken immediately after the incident confirm that a significant amount of blood was on the retriever’s head and on the jacket and pants worn by the victim," and "this matches the areas where the victim was injured."

Additionally, it stated, "The victim received treatment for three sutures on his right wrist due to the bite, and the health center's medical records visited right after the incident also state ‘dog bite’," concluding that Mr. A's claims were unfounded.

The court dismissed the appeal, stating, "The circumstances raised by the defendant as reasons for the appeal appear to have already been considered in the original trial."

Image source: Data images to aid understanding of the article / gettyimagesbank