가축분뇨의관리및이용에관한법률위반
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is the representative of the D farm located in Chungcheongnam-si, who operates livestock breeding facilities for the purpose of selling salt farms.
A person who intends to install a salt farm raising facility with a size of at least 200 square meters or to install a salt farm raising facility with a capacity of at least 50 square meters shall file a report on the installation of emission facilities with the competent administrative agency, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry
Nevertheless, on May 2016, the Defendant installed a salt raising facility with approximately 1,134 square meters of light area without reporting installation.
Summary of Evidence
1. The defendant's legal statement (as at the date of the second public trial, in the case);
1. A report on the result of a business trip [the defendant set up a stable on May 2016, and raised 30 mariths, and 97 mariths were additionally raised upon the request of the branch leader on May 2017, when raising 30 maris.
The argument is asserted.
However, in light of the contents and legislative process of Article 50 subparag. 4 and Article 11(3) of the Livestock Excreta Management and Use Act, the crime of installing waste-generating facilities without filing a report is established immediately upon completion of such act and simultaneously completed at the same time (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do2471, Jul. 14, 201). Thus, as long as the Defendant installed a salt raising facility with a size of not less than 200m2 without filing a report on the area under which the Defendant is liable to report, the crime is already completed, and the increase or decrease in the number of raising livestock thereafter does not affect the establishment of the crime.
In addition, in light of the scale of the facility installed by the defendant without reporting or the period of operation of the facility, it does not seem that the fine for summary order is excessive and unfair.
Defendant’s assertion is rejected
Application of Statutes
1. Article 50 of the relevant Act on the Management and Use of Excreta which is the option of punishment and Articles 50 and 11 (3) of the Act on the Management and Use of Excreta which is the option of punishment;
1. Attraction of a workhouse;