A fine was finalized for Lee, the principal of a dog daycare identified only by the surname Lee and in the 30s, who crushed a poodle in her care after it bit her hand, causing a tooth to fall out.
The Supreme Court's First Division, presided over by Justice Chun Dae-yup, said on Feb. 2 that it dismissed Lee's appeal on charges of violating the Animal Protection Act and property damage and finalized the lower court ruling that imposed a fine of 3 million won.
On July 16, 2024, dog owner A left a companion dog at a dog daycare in Geoje, South Gyeongsang Province. A told the daycare principal, Lee, "The dog is a 10-year-old senior, is afraid of men, lacks socialization, and is sensitive."
While Lee was conducting trick training for A's poodle at the daycare, the poodle suddenly bit Lee's hand and became agitated. Lee then grabbed the poodle's jaw and pinned it between her legs, pressing down for 14 minutes, and the poodle suffered an injury that caused a tooth to fall out.
Prosecutors charged Lee, finding that Lee had abused the animal and damaged A's property—the dog—by causing medical expenses. During trial, Lee argued that the actions were appropriate as "dominance training." Lee also claimed that the tooth loss occurred because the dog, roughly equivalent to 60 years old in human terms, had poor dental condition and that it happened while pulling a hand out after being bitten.
In the first trial, the court fined Lee 3 million won. The panel said, "Even in a YouTube video by a training expert that Lee submitted to the court, 'dominance training' amounts only to flipping the dog over and lightly poking the dog's jaw or side with a finger one or two times," adding, "There is no act of flipping the dog over and pressing it down with a human body for more than 10 minutes."
Lee appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal. The panel said, "Lee, an adult male weighing over 80 kilograms, immobilized a victim dog that is small at about 3.5 kilograms and around 10 years old for about 14 minutes," adding, "From the point when Lee recognized the dog's injury yet continued the same control behavior more forcefully, it is reasonable to view that this exceeded the justifiable level recognized by social norms."
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower court's understanding of the legal principles on animal abuse under the Animal Protection Act.