초록 열기/닫기 버튼
The importance of animal companions to compensate for the loneliness of today's hardhearted people has grown bigger than ever. On the other hand, side effects are also serious. They include conflicts between neighbors over dog bite accidents, problems with abandoned dogs, and problems with cruelty to animal. In the meantime, people are often attacked by dogs, and eventually killed by dogs. However, as this is an accident caused by a dog, not by a human being, there is also much controversy over the legal process. To what extent is the animal owner liable for animal attacks? In particular, in this paper I am paying attention to the criminal responsibility of pet owners for dog bite accidents. When the owner goes out with a registered animal or a fierce dog, he must wear a leash and a muzzle according to the regulations. This violation is subject to a fine, and a person's fatal accident caused by such a violation is subject to criminal penalties under the revised Animal Protection Act. But there is no regulation in that Animal Protection Act to fine people who let animals subject to registration, not fierce dogs, out. If a dog bite a person in this situation, regulations of crime by negligence or by occupational or gross negligence should be applied, because there is no provisions about these situation in the Animal Protection Act. Rather, I think the part that needs to be dealt with strongly legally is the sanction against violation of safety devices, such as dog leash and muzzle. I think the light sanctions are insufficient to prevent the increasing number of pet accidents. While it is important to punish severely after a crime has occurred, it also requires strong measures to prevent dangerous situations before casualties occur. Violations of the owner's duty on dogs that are not used to leash and muzzle should be defined as operating criminals and punished with criminal penalties.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
Animal, Pet, Dog Bite, Legal Position of Animal, Criminal Responsibility of Animal
