The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) even though the Defendant installed a dog breeding facility prior to the designation of a dog breeding facility as a discharge facility subject to reporting under the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “Waste Act”), insofar as he continued to raise dogs using the dog breeding facility even after the designation of a discharge facility subject to reporting, even if he does not constitute “a person who intends to install a discharge facility” under Article 11(3) of the Livestock Excreta Act, it shall be deemed that the Defendant constitutes “a person who raises livestock using the discharge facility” added to Article 50 subparag. 3 of the Livestock Excreta Act by being amended by Act No. 10973, Jul. 28, 2011. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Judgment

If a person who installed a specific waste-generating facility does not fall under “a person who intends to install a waste-generating facility” as a person subject to reporting under Article 11(3) of the Livestock Excreta Act at the time of installation, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the person who raises livestock using the waste-generating facility does not constitute “a person who raises livestock using a waste-generating facility” under Article 50 subparag. 3 of the Livestock Excreta Act, and the Defendant installed a dog raising facility prior to the designation of a dog raising facility subject to reporting under the Livestock Excreta Act, and thus, the Defendant did not fall under Article 50 subparag. 3 of

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it is not recognized that there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.