Recently, posts have surfaced on online communities claiming that a dog taken to a veterinary clinic for treatment was euthanized due to a mistake by the clinic.

While these posts have drawn a barrage of comments criticizing the clinic's poor management, it is difficult to hold a veterinarian criminally liable in reality if they claim the incident was a mistake rather than an intentional act.

This is because, despite the number of registered pets exceeding 3.6 million, South Korean laws and systems still tend to view pets as property rather than family members.

Even in cases where harm is caused to an animal, as described in the online posts, it is difficult to impose criminal punishment unless intent or willful negligence is proven.

There are also gaps regarding the legal status of pets.

The primary provisions under which criminal liability can be sought when a pet dies due to human action are the Animal Protection Act and the crime of property damage under the Criminal Act.

The Animal Protection Act specifically states that no one shall kill or cause the death of an animal without justifiable grounds, such as through cruel methods, in a public place, using it as feed for other animals when not unavoidable, or directly threatening humans.

Violating these provisions can result in up to 3 years in prison or a fine of up to 30 million won.

However, these provisions are generally structured to punish intentional abuse, killing, or violations of specified duties of care.

For this reason, in cases like the recent controversy where a pet dies due to a simple mistake or professional negligence by a veterinarian, it is not easy to lead to criminal punishment unless intent or a breach of duty of care is recognized.

The crime of property damage under the Criminal Act also lacks provisions for punishing negligent acts, making it difficult to apply even if a pet has died, provided that intent cannot be proven.

In a 2021 case where a Rottweiler bit and killed a Spitz, the court acquitted the owner of the charge, stating that it was not proven that the owner had the intent to let their dog kill another.

The court cited the lack of provisions for punishing negligent acts under the crime of property damage as the reason for the ruling at the time.

Consequently, if someone's pet dies due to another person's negligence or mistake, it is more likely that the case will proceed through civil litigation for damages rather than criminal punishment.

In this context, the domestic civil law system often treats animals as objects or subjects of property rights, meaning that compensation for damages is frequently limited to the market value of the animal.

While some recent court rulings have recognized the emotional value of pets and included compensation for mental distress, this is based on the judge's discretion rather than a clear legal provision.

A 2025 study by the Korea Legislation Research Institute, titled A Study on the Legal Status of Animals, pointed out this legal vacuum, stating, "The current legal system in Korea does not specify the legal status and protection of animals, and it is evaluated as having weak or no legal binding force."

As social awareness regarding animals changes, there are ongoing efforts in Korea to strengthen animal protection.

A prime example is the 2022 amendment to the Animal Protection Act, which specified acts of animal abuse and strengthened punishments.

The number of cases of violations of the Animal Protection Act and the number of arrests are also on the rise.

According to statistics from the National Police Agency on crime occurrence and arrests, the number of cases of violations of the Animal Protection Act (including abuse, inadequate care, and violations of business operator compliance) rose from 69 in 2010 to over 1,000 in 2021 with 1,072 cases, and has since maintained a similar level with 1,236 cases in 2022, 1,290 in 2023, and 1,236 in 2024.

The number of arrests, which stood at 64 in 2010, reached a record high of 972 in 2024.

This is interpreted not as an increase in animal abuse compared to the past, but as an increase in reports and investigations due to changing perceptions of animal abuse.

Despite the shift in social perception, many point out that legal punishments are still lenient.

According to the Supreme Court's Judicial Yearbook, out of 114 first-instance rulings for violations of the Animal Protection Act in 2024, 72 cases (63.2%) resulted in property-related penalties such as fines, while only 20 cases (17.5%) resulted in imprisonment or suspended sentences.

In 2023, 59.8% (67 cases) of 112 first-instance cases resulted in property-related penalties, while 25.9% (29 cases) resulted in imprisonment or suspended sentences.

As criticism of these "slap-on-the-wrist" punishments continued, the Supreme Court established sentencing guidelines for crimes violating the Animal Protection Act early last year.

The guidelines recommend a base sentence of 4 months to 1 year in prison or a fine of 3 million to 12 million won for killing an animal, and 2 months to 10 months in prison or a fine of 1 million to 10 million won for causing pain or injury.

Starting in 2027, the Special Act on the Prevention of Breeding, Slaughter, and Distribution of Dogs for Consumption will be enforced, and slaughtering dogs for consumption will be punishable by up to 3 years in prison or a fine of up to 30 million won.

As a result, those who take someone else's pet and slaughter it for consumption could be punished for violations of the Special Act on Dog Consumption, in addition to charges of theft, property damage, and violations of the Animal Protection Act, depending on the circumstances.

Attempts to de-objectify animals in civil law are also continuing.

While the Animal Protection Act deals with the punishment of acts such as abuse, the Civil Act is the fundamental law that determines legal relationships between private individuals, such as damages and ownership, when an animal is injured or killed.

In October 2021, a Ministry of Justice amendment to the Civil Act, which would have added a provision stating "animals are not objects," was proposed but was scrapped by the National Assembly.

Most recently, in April of this year, Minister of Justice Park Sung-jae announced that the ministry would push for the amendment of the Civil Act to "de-objectify animals" again after going through public consensus.

There are also surveys showing that many citizens support the de-objectification of animals.

According to a 2022 report by Gallup Korea on perceptions regarding the legal status of animals, animal testing in the scientific community, animal sentience, and dog consumption, 48% of respondents agreed that animals should be granted legal status as living beings, which was higher than those who opposed it (37%).

Opposition to dog consumption increased from 37% in 2015 to 64% in 2022, and the experience of consuming dog meat within the last year decreased from 27% to 8%.

In some European countries, there are already many cases where provisions specifying the legal status of animals are included in the legal system.

According to the National Assembly Research Service's 2021 report, Legislative Examples and Implications for the Legal Status of Animals, countries such as Austria, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein, the Czech Republic, and the Canadian province of Quebec stipulate in their civil codes that "animals are not objects."

France recognized the uniqueness of animals by including a provision that "animals are sentient living beings."

The Korea Legislation Research Institute's report emphasized that the discussion on the legal status of animals is not merely for strengthening animal protection or welfare, but is a prerequisite for clarifying the concept of animals, improving the relationship between animals and humans, and bringing about correct changes in social perception toward animals.

Furthermore, it argued that it is necessary to go beyond setting declarative provisions and to specifically prepare legislation or principles of interpretation regarding liability for damages when animals are killed, prohibition of compulsory execution against animals, the treatment of pets in cases of divorce, and the prohibition of pet sales.

Park Joo-yeon, a lawyer at PNR (People for Non-human Rights), an organization of lawyers researching animal rights, suggested, "Under the Civil Act, animals are still treated the same as objects, so even if one loses a pet that is like family, the compensation for damages is often small. The Civil Act should be amended in a direction that recognizes animals as having a special legal status different from objects."

She added, "Even in cases of accidents without intent, if the perpetrator is in a position that bears a high duty of care by profession, such as a veterinarian or someone working in the pet industry, and their negligence causes irreparable damage such as the death of a pet, a provision is needed to punish negligent acts under certain conditions."

(Photo: Yonhap News)