가축분뇨의관리및이용에관한법률위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although there was no mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles that the Defendants had committed an act of flowing the departure fund of this case into public waters, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of one million won, Defendant B: a fine of five hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that Defendant A operates a livestock shed in Jeonyang-gun, and obtains permission to install a livestock excreta discharge facility, and Defendant B’s son. The person discharging, collecting, transporting, disposing of, or spraying livestock excreta, manure, and liquid manure shall not commit an act that discharges or is likely to flow to public waters by discharging or neglecting it, or spraying it without complying with the standards for spraying liquid manure.
On January 1, 2018, the Defendants conspiredd to cover approximately 55 tons of composts in dry field D located in YYYYYYYYYYYYY, and entered approximately 5 tons of composts in the dry field above dry field around July 10, 2018 into the waterway through a waterway equal to the number adjacent to the dry field.
B. The lower court found the Defendants guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence.
C. In light of the following circumstances, in view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, there is room to deem that the Defendants committed an act of causing the Defendants to flow out of the instant composts into the agricultural waterway, apart from the fact that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendants actually carried out the instant composts into the public waters, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case.