South Korea’s National Assembly has passed an amendment to the Animal Protection Act that would allow courts to bar certain people prosecuted for animal cruelty from keeping animals. The measure cleared the plenary session on October 1 after passing the relevant parliamentary committee the previous month, according to reports citing the National Assembly’s legislative information system.
Under the amendment, prosecutors may ask a court for an animal-keeping prohibition when a person has been indicted for an animal cruelty offense and is considered at risk of reoffending. If the court grants the request, the person may be prohibited from raising, managing or protecting animals for a period of one to five years and would be subject to supervision during that period.
- Legislative action
- The National Assembly passed the amendment on October 1
- Possible prohibition
- One to five years without raising, managing or protecting animals
- Penalty for violation
- Up to one year in prison or a fine of up to 10 million won
Violating a court-issued prohibition would carry a penalty of up to one year in prison or a fine of up to 10 million won. In such a case, the relevant local government could acquire ownership of the animal. This gives authorities a mechanism to separate an animal from an offender instead of relying only on punishment for the original abuse.
Courts gain a prevention-focused protection tool
The amendment also creates a basis for keeping an alleged victim of abuse in protective custody while the criminal case remains unresolved. When a suspected abuser has been indicted, the protected animal would not have to be returned before a final judgment. The provision addresses the risk that an animal could be sent back to the accused while a prosecution is still under way.
Basic care duties are also strengthened. Failure to provide appropriate conditions, including sufficient living space, may result in an administrative fine. Animal protection groups welcomed the legislation as a significant advance, but the reports do not specify its implementation date or the detailed standards authorities will use to assess repeat-offense risk and inadequate care. Those rules will determine how consistently the new protections operate in practice.