KARA and other animal groups have urged police to act on this but the police are relutant to do anything. The man involved claims it was an accident.

An article on the incident is here, in the Korea Times.

Update, April 29: KARA Will Pressure Police for Fuller Investigation

KARA will hold a press conference on Monday April 30 calling for the reopening of the case of a beagle dragged to death with a Hyundai Equus.

As humans have human rights, animals have animal rights. Therefore, we as a society should move beyond human rights to “Rights of life.” However, acts of animal cruelty in S. Korea are regarded too lightly. Not investigating a case that involves animal cruelty from a thorough legal point of view is another great infringement on “Rights of life.” For a fair resolution of this case, KARA’s “Rights of life” network attorneys would like to put forward a reasonable legal opinion. This is not an absolute criminal punishment but an accurate legal perspective for "restorative justice."

On April 26, Seoul Seocho Police announced that it will drop the charges on the case being called “Devil Equus.” Their argument, based on the Animal Protection Law, Article 8, 1-1, was that there was no intention to cause a death in this case. However, police terminated the investigation hastily without taking a closer look at the case from all directions. The act of putting the Beagle into trunk is itself an abuse that causes physical and psychological suffering.

Specifically, this comes under the Animal Protection Law Article 8, 2-1, "act of using a tool to cause injury," Article 8, 2-4, "other acts of inflicting injury without any justifiable reason" and these should apply for a correct resolution of this case.

KARA’s “Rights of life” network attorneys’ opinion on the legal review of the “Hyundai Equus” case is as follows:

The police concluded the investigation with a judicial misunderstanding in that they only applied the Animal Protection Law, Article 8, 1-1. However, when applying other clauses of the law, the corresponding actions of intent must be judged differently. In order to determine if the applicable requirement is met for Article 8, 2-1 and 2-4, the nature of the accused’s willful intent should be thoroughly reinvestigated.

Please support the KARA’s effort to condemn negligence against animals, to defend the dead Beagle, and to advocate the universal rights of life through legitimate process prescribed by the law.

Update: Post Press Conference

After a legal review, 20 attorneys have put their legal opinion together and are currently trying to find the prosecutor who was directly dealing with this Equus case.

Because the Seocho police stated that it was difficult to investigate the Equus incident as there were no previous similar cases where anyone was found guilty, we feel that it is very important to establish a precedent.

The attorneys went through relevant articles from the Korean Animal Welfare Act and examined how this kind of case has been dealt with in other countries such as UK, New Zealand and Switzerland.

We are hoping to submit further information to the Metropolitan Police and provide any legal information or opinion they may need to reinvestigate this case.

In January 2012, KARA received a report about 4 hamsters delivered dead in a box after being ordered online.

They were bought through Gmarket (whose parent company is eBay). Upon investigation, KARA uncovered similar cases and that Gmarket was heavily involved in online animal sales.

Unbelievably, live animals were simply packed in boxes for delivery, as if they were toys. (It is not so surprising, given that at many major stores in Korea, pet supplies and pets are found in toy departments, thus perpetuating twisted perceptions.)

On the 24th of February, KARA sent Gmarket an official statement about the problem of online animal sales and asked them to respond. No reply. After many calls and messages to stop animal sales on their website, they finally announced a change of regulations on the 28th of March.

The change to Gmarket regulations about animal sales include the following:

1. With respect to the parent company eBay’s policy of banning online animal sales, Gmarket will no longer allow animal sales in consideration of their welfare and safety. This includes other vertebrates, such as amphibians, birds, reptiles and fish.

2. As of March 28, 2012, animals will not be allowed to be registered as sales items on the Gmarket website. Previously registered animals will remain advertised as sales items for one month before ads are taken down.

3. If animal sales are reported as taking place on Gmarket, it will be treated as against policy and responded accordingly.

4. All animal sales related sponsor links will be deleted from the Gmarket website.

At least companies are listening and doing something about protests.

But we stopped other major online sellers selling pets last year, and yet here is another one. If there is a demand by ignorant consumers, sellers will pop-up elsewhere and it will be an ongoing problem.