Supreme Court rules training pretext does not excuse animal abuse

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a dog kindergarten operator, ruling that inflicting pain under the guise of training constitutes abuse if other methods to prevent harm were available.

The case centered on an incident where the defendant pinned a 3.5-kilogram, 10-year-old dog between his legs for approximately 14 minutes. The court found the operator initiated personal trick training without the owner's request and continued despite the dog showing signs of refusal before biting his hand, causing dislocated teeth and other injuries.

In its ruling, the high court clarified that acts performed for breeding or training purposes qualify as abuse under Article 10 of the Animal Protection Act if they cause unnecessary suffering when alternative measures exist. Illegality is negated only when inflicting pain is the sole means to prevent immediate threats to human life or property, and the response remains proportional to the danger.

The justices outlined specific criteria for determining whether an act is justified, including the legitimacy of the motive, the appropriateness of the method, and the balance between protected interests and inflicted harm. They emphasized that factors such as the animal's age, health condition, and temperament must be weighed against the urgency of the situation.

The court noted the defendant had been informed by the owner that the dog was elderly, fearful of men, and highly sensitive. Despite knowing these traits and recognizing the moment the dog sustained dental injuries, the operator persisted with the same forceful control method rather than seeking a less painful alternative. The ruling also confirmed charges of property damage, noting the owner incurred unspecified veterinary costs to treat the injuries.