Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On May 26, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on January 28, 2010 by the Daejeon District Court for occupational embezzlement, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 28 of the same year, and is currently under suspended execution.

On May 9, 2006, the Defendant is a person who installed livestock excreta discharge facilities for chickens in the area of 642 square meters of a farm outside Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and two lots of land.

A person who intends to change the kinds of livestock raised shall report a change in the emission facilities to the competent authority.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without reporting on the change of livestock excreta emission facilities around August 30, 2012, raised pigs 72 heads in the above farm without having livestock excreta discharge facilities flown nearby agricultural waterways without having livestock excreta discharge facilities flown.

Accordingly, the defendant allowed the discharge of livestock excreta that has not been properly treated into public waters.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A written accusation, a written statement, or a written confirmation of violation;

1. Guidance and inspection marks of places of business installing livestock excreta discharge facilities, and certificate of completion of report on the installation of livestock wastewater discharge and treatment facilities;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing sloping photographs;

1. Article 49 of the relevant Act on Criminal Facts and Articles 49 subparagraph 4, 11 (3), and 10 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta Selection for Punishment of Crimes (Selection of Fines)

2. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse.

3. The defendant and the defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order acknowledged that the defendant did not report on the change of discharge facilities to the competent authority, but the defendant artificially discharges livestock excreta of this case to public waters, not artificially discharges livestock excreta of this case into public waters, and only discharges livestock excreta of this case to neighboring farm waterways on the wind that has a large amount of rain, and thus, the defendant

It can be seen by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court.