ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026
Companion-Animal Abuse in South Korea: Welfare and Veterinary Implications from Criminal-Court Decisions (2003-2025).
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Animal abuse directly compromises companion-animal welfare, causing pain, injury, neglect, and, in many cases, death. Although veterinary case series and welfare surveys offer clinical perspectives, far less is known about how abuse is documented in criminal-court decisions. This study analyzed 501 publicly available judgments issued under the South Korean Animal Protection Act between 2003 and 2025 to characterize the species involved, the abusive acts described, sentencing outcomes, and the visibility of veterinary information. Dogs were the predominant victims (63.9%), followed by a heterogeneous group of other or unspecified species (22.1%) and cats (14.0%). Blunt-force trauma (beating, kicking, or hitting with objects) was the most common coded act (92.0%), whereas neglect-related death (3.0%), asphyxiation (2.6%), and sharp-force trauma (2.4%) were recorded far less frequently. Most offenders received monetary fines (64.5%), with custodial sentences imposed in 14.1% of cases. Veterinary information was not consistently visible in the public legal record; a minimum of 7 of 501 decisions (1.4%) contained an unambiguous, explicit reference to veterinary involvement, and this floor estimate likely understates the true frequency, because many appellate summaries omitted the factual detail needed to determine whether veterinary records or expert opinions had been presented at earlier stages. The results therefore characterize how prosecuted abuse is represented in publicly accessible court records rather than the full spectrum of animal abuse or the severity of suffering experienced by the animals. When situated within the limited but growing international literature, the South Korean findings resemble other judgment-based datasets in foregrounding overt violence more readily than chronic or diffuse forms of welfare harm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.