가축분뇨의관리및이용에관한법률위반
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant engaged in livestock excreta-related business with the trade name “C” in the Gumi-si B.
A person who operates a waste-generating facility shall ensure that the liquid manure can easily flow into soil without discharging the liquid manure, along with spraying liquid manure, and shall comply with the spraying standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, such as that he/she shall not spread liquid manure in residential facilities in which people reside and in areas adjacent to not more than 100 meters in a neighboring area.
Nevertheless, from February 8, 2017 to February 9, 2017, the Defendant distributed liquid manure within 100 meters from Gumi-si and D, and even though there were residential facilities within 100 meters, the Defendant did not perform the work of spraying liquid manure or spraying soil.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. E statements;
1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;
1. Article 49 of the Act on the Management and Use of Excreta which is the option of the crime, and Article 49 of the Act on the Management and Use of Excreta which is the option of punishment, and Article 17 (1) 5 of the Act on the Selection of Fines;
1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;
1. The sentence identical to the order shall be imposed by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s reasoning for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order had a record of having received a fine of KRW 2 million on June 22, 2016 for the same kind of crime; (b) a fine of KRW 4 million on January 17, 2017; (c) the amount of the distributed amount by the Defendant is not more than 250 tons; (d) the Defendant’s closure of the business of transporting livestock excreta after the instant case; and (e) the fact that the Defendant’s closure of the business of transporting livestock excreta