Nevertheless, the Defendant, without filing a report from January 201 to October 18, 2013, installed a breeding facility of 333.2 square meters of the building area of a stable in North-gu D and E in the Posi-gu, Northern-si, Ma from January 2010 to October 18, 2013, and raised 41 mari.

Judgment

A. Under Articles 50 subparag. 3 and 11(3) of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta enacted by Act No. 8010 on September 27, 2006 (hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”), a person subject to reporting refers to a person who intends to install or alter a waste-generating facility exceeding the scale prescribed by Presidential Decree. If a person who installed a waste-generating facility does not have any person subject to reporting at the time of installation, even if the person subject to reporting at the time of installation, he/she constitutes a person subject to reporting pursuant to the amendment of the relevant Act, the person subject to reporting cannot be deemed as a “person who intends to install a waste-generating facility,” a person subject to reporting under the said provision, and a penal provision should be strictly interpreted and applied in accordance with the language and text of the Act and shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the defendant. The foregoing interpretation also applies to a person subject to reporting under Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Livestock Excreta Act without delegation of the Livestock Excreta Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do2471, Jul. 14, 2011). Moreover, Article 50 Subparag. 3 of the former Livestock Excreta Act (amended by Act No. 10973, Jul. 28, 201) installs waste-generating facilities without reporting in violation of Article 11(3) or after reporting in a false or other unjust manner.