Outrage Erupts as Court Gives Light Sentence to Wild Animal Abusers on Jeju Island

Animal rights groups on Jeju Island held a joint press conference in front of a local court on Tuesday, expressing discontent over a recent ruling against two individuals who brutally captured and killed wild animals.

The groups demanded that the animal abusers, who had tortured wild animals for four years, receive the maximum punishment allowed by law to deter such heinous crimes in the future. Speaking outside the Jeju District Court, they criticized what they saw as a lenient sentence and urged prosecutors to immediately appeal last week’s ruling.

The main perpetrator, a 35-year-old man, is accused of hunting and killing 160 wild animals on the island in 125 separate incidents between December 2020 and March of this year. His 31-year-old accomplice was involved in eight of these hunts between March 2023 and March of this year.

Under the Wildlife Protection and Management Act, hunting is permitted only when proper licenses are held. The law prohibits dangerous hunting methods such as the use of explosives, traps, pitfalls, and toxic substances. It also bans the cruel killing of wild animals or inflicting pain without justifiable cause.

Investigators found that the pair had set dogs upon the animals to maim them and employed brutal tactics, including repeatedly bashing the animals’ heads with rocks and stabbing them with custom-made spears and knives. The main perpetrator even recorded the killings and shared the footage with members of his online community.

During the initial investigation, the suspects falsely claimed that their dogs had accidentally attacked the wild animals during walks. They eventually admitted to the charges during the trial.

The Jeju District Court sentenced both the main perpetrator and his accomplice to two-year prison terms with suspended sentences. Prosecutors had sought a three-year sentence for the main perpetrator and a one-year term for his accomplice.

The court acknowledged the defendants’ actions as cruel and deserving of severe punishment. At one point during the hearings, the judge asked, “Is this something a human could do? It’s too cruel.” Nonetheless, the court ultimately handed down reduced sentences, citing the defendants’ lack of prior criminal records, their expressed remorse, and their family responsibilities.