Pungsan Dog Attacked with Frying Pan... Doctor Claims Self-Defense Saying "It Barked at Me"

Mr. A "Claimed Self-Defense Due to Threats Leading to Assault"
Court Sentences 7 Months Imprisonment with 2 Years Probation

A doctor in his 30s who claimed self-defense after violently beating a Pungsan dog tied to a leash with a frying pan and other objects was sentenced to probation.

The Gwangju District Court Criminal Division 2 (Presiding Judge Park Min-woo) on the 31st sentenced Dr. A (39), who was indicted for violating the Animal Protection Act, to 7 months in prison with 2 years of probation.

Pungsan Dog. The photo is not related to the specific content of the article.
[Photo by Yonhap News]

Dr. A is accused of violently beating a leashed Pungsan dog with a frying pan and other objects around 11:35 p.m. on July 11 last year in front of a factory in Buk-gu, Gwangju. The dog's owner paid approximately 1.28 million KRW in medical expenses.

According to the prosecution, Dr. A entered the yard while passing by the factory, grabbed construction materials, and swung them at the dog. He then picked up a frying pan lying on the ground and struck the dog about 20 times.

Dr. A explained that he committed the act because the Pungsan dog barked at him. He especially claimed that since there were many stray dogs near the factory entrance and he felt threatened by the dog, his assault was an act of self-defense.

Regarding the claims of both parties, the judge stated, "Mr. A was never directly threatened by the victim's dog, and considering that he could have simply passed by the scene but instead indiscriminately struck the dog tied to a leash, it cannot be seen as an act to avoid danger."
[Image source=Asia Economy]

Regarding Dr. A’s claim, the prosecution argued, "Dr. A was never directly threatened by the victim’s dog, and although he could have simply passed by the scene, he indiscriminately struck the dog tied to the leash, so it cannot be considered an act to avoid danger."

In response to both parties’ claims, the presiding judge stated, "Dr. A was not directly threatened by the victim’s dog, and considering that he could have passed by the scene but instead indiscriminately struck the dog tied to the leash, it cannot be regarded as an act to avoid danger."

He added, "Such acts violate the purpose of the Animal Protection Act, which aims to prevent animal abuse, protect animal life, and foster public sentiment that respects animal life. Considering the cruelty of the indiscriminate attack, the nature of the crime is not light."

He further stated, "However, since it appears that Dr. A felt some degree of threat due to the stray dogs at night, and considering the circumstances of the crime, as well as the fact that the victim reached a settlement and does not wish for punishment, these factors were comprehensively taken into account in determining the sentence."