A. The Defendant asserts a misunderstanding of facts: (a) the period for implementation required for the lawfulness of an unauthorized livestock shed was set by September 27, 2018 in accordance with the guidelines for the operation of the period for the lawful performance of an unauthorized livestock shed; (b) the Defendant’s act should be exempted; and (c) the Defendant’s breeding facility, unlike the general breeding facility, deemed that the facility that consumes micro-effective feed, as a facility that consumes micro-organism, did not cause malodor from the excreta, and thus, the report under the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta was unnecessary; (d) thus, the Defendant did not have intention to commit the instant crime; (e) however, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged

B. The lower court’s sentence (two million won of fine) on the ground of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the guidelines for the operation of the lawful performance period for an unauthorized livestock shed jointly with relevant ministries, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, on whether the Defendant’s act was exempted from liability in accordance with the guidelines for the operation of the period for the lawful performance of a livestock shed, which was formulated around February 2018, the installer of a livestock excreta discharge facility who must complete the lawfulization by March 24, 2018 shall submit an application for the report of a simplified discharge facility by March 24, 2018, and submit a plan for the performance of lawfulization by June 24, 2018, in cases where the person who installed and operates a livestock excreta discharge facility who must complete the lawfulization by March 24, 2018 submits a plan for the performance of the report by June 24, 2018, the period for each farmer

However, the defendant submitted an application for report of discharge facilities by March 24, 2018 in accordance with the above guidelines.

No evidence can be found to deem that the Defendant submitted a lawful implementation plan by June 24, 2018. Thus, the period for implementation necessary for the lawfulness of a stable is set according to the foregoing guidelines.