Security Company Workers Who Killed Stray Cats on Site Reported to Police

Employees of a district office subcontractor who killed a stray cat at the scene despite receiving a request to rescue the cat hit by a vehicle have been reported to the police.

Stray cat. Yonhap News

On the 20th, Yonhap News reported that Seo-gu, Incheon City, requested an investigation by the Seo-gu Police Station in Incheon into two individuals, including Mr. A from a certain cleaning company, on charges of violating the Animal Protection Act. Mr. A and others are suspected of killing a stray cat using work tools on a road in Seoknam-dong, Seo-gu, around 3 p.m. on the 9th. They had been dispatched to the scene after receiving a report from Seo-gu to "rescue a cat hit by a car," but they neither rescued the cat nor handed it over to a hospital.

According to footage released by KBS, they used a shovel, a work tool, to kill the cat while it was still alive. The video shows the cat struggling and employees turning their heads away as if unable to watch. They explained, "The cat was severely injured and in great pain," and "It was going to die before even reaching the hospital, so we killed it."

They are employees of a cleaning company contracted by Seo-gu, known to have served as the 'on-duty rapid response team' handling field tasks during hours when public officials are not working. Their duties mainly involved dealing with road debris or waste causing traffic obstruction and wild animal carcasses. Seo-gu confirmed that animal rescue was also included in their tasks.

The Animal Protection Act obligates humane and prompt treatment without causing unnecessary pain to injured animals requiring rescue. Rescued animals should be transported to a hospital for expert evaluation, and if treatment must be administered on-site, it should minimize suffering. Additionally, killing animals in public places such as streets is prohibited.

Animal protection experts view the subcontractor’s actions as a clear violation of the duty under the Animal Protection Act to avoid causing unnecessary pain. A representative from the animal protection organization 'Kara' stated, "Basic animal protection manuals were not followed in this situation," and argued, "Both the subcontractor and Seo-gu, as the supervisor, bear responsibility." There are also criticisms regarding Seo-gu’s complaint response system, which delegated animal rescue duties to a cleaning company.

Following the incident, about 40 complaints urging strict punishment of the subcontractor employees and measures to prevent recurrence were reportedly submitted through Seo-gu’s online complaint portal.

A Seo-gu official said, "There were wrongful actions during the complaint handling process by the subcontractor," and added, "We will improve the response to complaints during vulnerable hours." They also announced plans to provide animal rescue and protection training to the subcontractor and to reorganize the complaint response system to prevent recurrence.

The police plan to identify the personal details of Mr. A and others and investigate the specific circumstances of the incident.