A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding (Defendant B) as a real manager of F and D, Defendant B left room for the capacity of the livestock excreta treatment plant of Mad-D. As such, Defendant B brought F’s swine excreta into D for provisional treatment. The above act does not constitute an intermediate discharge prohibited under the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting Defendant B of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 7 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The relevant legal principles and statutes 1) Any person who intends to install a waste-generating facility exceeding a certain scale out of a livestock discharge facility shall obtain permission to change his/her waste-generating facility without discharging livestock into a treatment facility (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do267, Mar. 27, 2014; 2014Do267, etc.). 2) In order to install a facility to jointly treat livestock excreta, he/she must obtain permission to install a joint discharge facility (Articles 12(1) and 11(1), 11(3) of the Act, and any person who intends to install a waste-generating facility exceeding a certain scale among livestock discharge facilities due to livestock breeding, and where a person who has obtained permission to install a waste-generating facility intends to change the location of a waste-generating facility or a disposal facility, he/she shall obtain permission to change permission from the person who has obtained permission to install the waste-generating facility (Article 11(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, Article 65(3) of the Enforcement Rule).

(1) Defendant B shall be against F in Gu/Si/Gu E.