[Seocho-dong Legal Talk] Kindness of an Animal Funeral Director?...Fined for Incinerating a Dead Cat

Supreme Court Grand Bench. Photo by Supreme Court

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] "A mobile funeral service for companion animals."

"Our company has partnered with reliable nationwide funeral homes or cremation vehicles to do our best to ensure that guardians can pay their respects in the most comfortable, safest, and quickest way possible, tailored to their preferred time."

As the number of people raising companion animals has surpassed 10 million, various related businesses are flourishing day by day. One of these is the companion animal funeral service.

In the past, when a companion animal died, it was common to bury it in a nearby hill or yard and hold a funeral. However, as interest and affection for companion animals have grown and they have come to be recognized as family members, funerals are increasingly conducted through agencies, and separate graves are being made.

Mr. A, who worked at an animal funeral home and served as the head of the Jeonbuk branch of a certain Animal Funeral Association, received a request on December 4, 2019, from Mr. Jeong Mo at a baseball stadium parking lot in Gunsan City to conduct a funeral for a deceased cat.

Mr. A signed a contract with Mr. Jeong to receive a total of 320,000 KRW covering the coffin, veterinary services, embalming, and cremation costs. He then contacted Mr. B, who owned a mobile animal carcass incineration vehicle, to request an on-site cremation. Mr. B, also a member of the same Animal Funeral Association, was to be paid 200,000 KRW for the cremation.

On the day of the funeral, Mr. A wiped the cat’s carcass brought by Mr. Jeong with alcohol, wrapped it in hanji paper for embalming, and then placed it into the mobile incinerator installed in the animal carcass disposal vehicle brought by Mr. B to complete the cremation.

Mr. Jeong recorded this process on his mobile phone and reported the two men, who were eventually summarily indicted and fined. The charges were violation of the Animal Protection Act against Mr. A, and violation of the Animal Protection Act plus the Waste Management Act against Mr. B.

Article 32 of the Animal Protection Act requires those who wish to engage in animal funeral services related to companion animals to have facilities and personnel that meet standards prescribed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Article 33 of the same law mandates that those who wish to engage in animal funeral services must register with the mayor, county governor, or district office head according to standards set by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Violation of this results in a fine of up to 5 million KRW under Article 46, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 2 of the same law.

Mr. A and Mr. B appealed the summary order by the prosecution and requested a formal trial, but the first trial sentenced them to a fine of 500,000 KRW.

During the trial, the two argued that the cremation video CD submitted by Mr. Jeong was illegally obtained evidence because Mr. Jeong had repeatedly requested cat funerals and filmed the cremation process before reporting them. They claimed it was a kind of sting operation.

However, the court did not accept this. The Supreme Court holds that if the suspect simply repeatedly requested the crime without direct involvement with the investigative agency, and the agency did not use deception or stratagem, it is not considered an illegal sting operation. This applies even if the inducement caused the criminal intent.

The court stated, "According to witness Mr. Jeong’s testimony, he requested the funeral from defendant A without direct involvement with the investigative agency and obtained consent for photographing the defendants and filming the cremation process. Therefore, this does not constitute a sting operation nor is the evidence illegally obtained," rejecting their claims.

Although the prosecutor omitted Article 30 of the Criminal Act concerning joint principals in the indictment, the court added this provision to the applicable laws, judging it a clear clerical error that did not affect Mr. A’s substantive right to defense.

The two appealed the first trial verdict, continuing to dispute whether the crime was established.

First, Mr. A argued that he only acted as a funeral agent and did not engage in animal funeral services. Since Mr. B cremated the cat carcass brought by Mr. Jeong, the obligation to have facilities meeting certain standards and to register with local authorities lies with Mr. B, and he himself was not an animal funeral service provider.

Mr. B, a manufacturer of mobile incineration vehicles, claimed that he cremated Mr. Jeong’s cat carcass free of charge at the request of Mr. A, whom he knew personally, to test the performance of a newly made incineration vehicle, and that he did not engage in animal funeral services or waste disposal as a business.

However, the court did not accept their arguments.

A decisive piece of evidence was a pamphlet from the company operated by Mr. A. Phrases such as "mobile funeral service for companion animals" and "tailored to the guardian’s preferred time" suggested that cremation using a mobile incineration vehicle was part of Mr. A’s business.

The court also found that Mr. B was fully aware that Mr. A was requesting the cremation of animal carcasses as part of the funeral procedure, considering that Mr. A initially asked him to come to the animal funeral home where he worked but later changed the location. It was also considered unlikely that Mr. B would have traveled all the way to Gunsan just to test the incineration vehicle.

Ultimately, their appeal was dismissed, and after further appeal to the Supreme Court, the verdict remained unchanged.