[1] The meaning of "taking out and raising livestock" under Article 23 (1) 8 of the Natural Parks Act and the method of determining whether raising livestock to us constitutes such meaning

[2] The case denying the establishment of a crime of violating Article 23 (1) 8 of the Natural Parks Act in a case where a stable is installed within a natural park area and a chest is raised only by feed

[1] Article 23(1) of the Natural Parks Act provides that "a person who intends to conduct an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs, other than a park project, in a park area shall obtain permission from the park management authority, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 23(1) of the same Act provides that "an act of raising livestock" is one of the acts subject to such permission. In light of the language and text of the above provision, legal interests and legislative purposes of protecting livestock, "an act of raising livestock by raising livestock" is interpreted as "an act of raising livestock without leaving livestock in a certain place, such as Korea," and it does not mean any act of raising livestock. Furthermore, if there are Korea where there are livestock, etc., it shall be determined by taking into account the structure and scale of the Republic of Korea, the relationship between surrounding natural environment and our natural ecosystem, whether there is any artificial food as part of the natural ecosystem, the method and purpose of raising livestock by raising livestock or by raising livestock without any artificial food, etc.

[2] The case denying the establishment of a crime of violating Article 23 (1) 8 of the Natural Parks Act in a case where a stable is installed within a natural park area and a chest is raised only by feed.

[1] Article 23 (1) 8 of the Natural Parks Act / [2] Article 23 (1) 8 of the Natural Parks Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Changwon District Court Decision 2008No458 decided August 14, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 23(1) of the Natural Parks Act provides that "any person who intends to conduct an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs other than a park project in a park area shall obtain permission from the park management authority, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 23(1) of the same Act provides that "an act of raising livestock" is one of the acts subject to such permission. In light of the language and text of the above provision, the legal interest and legislative purpose of protecting livestock, "an act of raising livestock by raising livestock" is interpreted as "an act of raising livestock without leaving livestock in a certain place, such as Korea," and it does not mean any act of raising livestock. Further, if there are Korea, etc. where any act falls under "an act of raising livestock by raising livestock", it shall be specifically examined according to the form and scale of raising livestock, the relationship with the surrounding natural environment, whether internal environment, such as South Korea can be deemed part of the natural ecosystem, whether domestic animals can be raised without any artificial meals or whether domestic animals can be raised by raising livestock or not.

According to the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the defendant installed a stable enclosed with steel pipes, steel nets, and slate roof and raised chests in a space that is cut off from the outside. The site where a stable is installed is land without grass or trees, and the chests in a stable were raised only by the feed supplied by the defendant. Thus, if the circumstances are the same, it is difficult to view that the defendant's act constitutes "the act of raising livestock".

In the same purport, the court below is just in maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the Defendant on the facts charged of this case on the grounds that there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant “the act of raising livestock” as stated in the facts charged, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 23(1) Subparagraph 8 of the Natural Parks Act as alleged. Other grounds of appeal are either extended interpretation of the concept constituting the elements of punishment law or different interpretation of law, which is a superior law, based on the arbitrary provision of the Enforcement Decree, and thus

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)