2. The Defendant’s act of this case is deemed to be against the Defendant’s duty to recognize the crime of this case at a late time, and the Defendant appears to be under the risk of re-offending by closing his livestock shed after detection of the violation. However, the amount of livestock excreta flowing into the public waters due to the crime of this case seems to be considerable due to the crime of this case, and in light of the legislative purpose of the Act on the Management and Use of Excreta in order to contribute to the sustainable development of livestock industry in harmony with the environment and the improvement of national health by converting livestock excreta into resources or disposing of them properly, thereby preventing environmental pollution.

Considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of committing a crime, means and consequence of a crime, circumstances after committing a crime, etc., various conditions of sentencing specified in the instant records and pleadings, the lower court’s determination of sentencing cannot be deemed unfair to exceed, or maintain, the reasonable bounds of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.