"How Dare You Hit My Dog?" 50s Fined for Tying Dog in Front of Store and Disrupting Business

Dissatisfied After Dog Hit by Car and Injured, Committed Crime
Appeal Court: "Some Customers Likely Felt Fear"

A man in his 50s who was prosecuted for tying his dog in front of a bakery and obstructing business was sentenced to a fine again in the appellate court. The man was investigated for carrying out the act out of resentment after the bakery owner hit and injured his dog with a passenger car.

According to the legal community on the 16th, Mr. A was prosecuted for obstructing business by tying his Dalmatian (approximately 60 cm in length and 40 cm in height) in front of the entrance of Mr. B's bakery located in Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, around 11:50 a.m. on August 7, 2022, preventing customers from entering for about 35 minutes.

It was revealed that Mr. A committed the crime out of dissatisfaction because Mr. B hit his dog with a passenger car while driving the day before and did not take any measures such as taking the dog to the hospital. The first trial sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 1 million won for obstruction of business.

Dalmatian. The photo is not directly related to the article content. [Image source=Pixabay]

In the appellate trial, he claimed, "I went to the bakery because of the accident the day before, but the victim was absent," and "I was waiting with the dog tied somewhere else, but someone else moved the dog in front of the bakery."

However, on the 16th, the 7th Criminal Appeals Division of Suwon District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Byung-su) dismissed Mr. A's appeal, which was filed on grounds of factual error, legal misinterpretation, and excessive sentencing, and upheld the original verdict.

The appellate court explained the reason for dismissal, stating, "The CCTV footage clearly shows the defendant tying the dog in front of the door of the store operated by the victim," and "The size of the dog objectively causes obstruction to people trying to enter the bakery by passing beside it, and there were customers who were startled upon seeing the dog and could not enter the store."

It added, "The means and method of the crime seem relatively minor, and there are somewhat mitigating circumstances regarding the circumstances leading to the crime," but "Considering comprehensively that some customers likely felt fear due to the crime, and that the defendant consistently denied the crime with an unconvincing excuse despite causing harm, the original sentence cannot be seen as excessively heavy or unfair."