동물보호법상 동물 개념에서 식용 목적인 어류 배제에 대한 비판

In this study, the decision not to prosecute was made even though the fishermen's assembly, which suffocated by using defense and red sea bream as protest tools, was accused of animal abuse as an opportunity, criticizes the interpretation theory that completely excludes fish for edible purposes under the Animal Protection Act from the scope of protection and its alternatives. It was intended to present interpretation and legislative theory. The attitude that broadly considers the legislative attitude that excludes fish for food from the beginning of protection in the Animal Protection Act does not meet the purpose of the Animal Protection Act, and when considered in relation to the Wildlife Act, it creates unnecessary legislative voids and raises problems in the legitimacy of the system. pointed out that it causes As an interpretation to solve this problem, the author argued that while reducing the interpretation from the stage of ‘edible purpose’ to the stage of ingestion and slaughter, it was necessary to prove the purpose in the usual way. Even though such an interpretation is possible, the prosecutor's attitude of unreasonably broadening the blind spot of legal protection creates a problem of concealing the issues that should be raised. In order to solve these problems, it is necessary to resolve the ambiguity of the law, and fundamentally, it is argued that it is necessary to revise the Animal Protection Act by faithfully contemplating the relationship between animals and humans without following the practices that need to be improved today.