A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the fact that a part of the flusium was laid down in the course of cleaning the transport pipe, it was not intentionally discharged livestock excreta, but it does not constitute an “inbound discharge” under the Act on the Management and Use of Excreta, which provides that the outflow of livestock caused by negligence in the management of facilities not intentional, does not constitute an “inbound discharge”.

Nevertheless, the defendant intentionally discharged livestock excreta.

In recognition of conviction, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, namely, ① the crime of this case was committed on February 7, 2015 by the civil petition was received for Jeju viewing and the public official in charge was discovered on the same day, and at the time the Defendant was operated.

D Farm farm 8-dong, 8-dong, 8-dong, 2-dong, 2-dong, and 2-dong, 2-dong, livestock excreta storage area, etc., and 2) Livestock excreta discharged from the above transfer pipe has been discharged to a point located far from D farm to a point located far away from about 500 meters, 12-meter, 13-meter in width, 7.5cm in height, as a result of a measurement after recovery of liquid manure, and considerable malodor was generated around the area. Considering the distance from the discharge site to the pool and the size of pool, etc., it appears that the amount of foul waste discharged is considerably high, and this part of the volume of the foul waste discharged has been changed to the new verification, and soil around the above transport pipe.