beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2012.08.31 2012노1043

가축분뇨의관리및이용에관한법률위반

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (guilty in the judgment of the lower court) is merely a lessee of the instant discharge facility. The instant discharge facility is an unauthorized building, and thus, the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “Act on Livestock Excreta”).

The Defendant is not a person obligated to report as prescribed by the Livestock Excreta Act. (2) The Defendant did not have the duty to report. (3) The Defendant did not allow the Defendant to flow livestock excreta into public waters around October 4, 2010, which is the date stated in the facts charged. The livestock excreta flowing into public waters is limited to livestock excreta left alone by a lessor or couple who had brought a lawsuit in the livestock shed prior to the Defendant. Even if the livestock excreta of the instant livestock shed flows into public waters, even if the livestock excreta of the instant livestock shed was discharged into public waters, this does not lead to the Defendant’s negligence in the discharge of livestock excreta, since the instant livestock excreta flow into public waters by hanging ditches between the livestock shed of this case and drain stations of this case and rainwater flow out through ditches, and the livestock excreta collected by the Defendant flow into public waters.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, and thus there is an error of misunderstanding of facts. (B) According to Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2007, Sep. 27, 2007), the lower court determined that “a person who installs and operates emission facilities subject to reporting shall file a report on installation of emission facilities under Article 11 of the Act not later than September 27, 2008.” Thus, it can be recognized that the Defendant, who is operating emission facilities subject to reporting, should report on installation of emission facilities by September 27, 2008, without doing so, made livestock excreta flow into public areas on October 4, 2010.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined by the Livestock Excreta Act in relation to the instant breeding facility.