The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant distributed the amount produced in each fish farm’s resource recovery facility to C agricultural partnership corporations established by each fish farm does not constitute “an act of spreading the amount produced in a resource recovery plant to any place other than a place secured by the person who installed the relevant resource recovery plant to spraying liquid manure,” which is regulated by the Act on the Management and Use of Excreta. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the provisions of relevant statutes, including Article 12-2(2) of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, which provides that a person who installs a resource recovery plant that makes the amount of judgment as to the assertion of factual mistake or misapprehension of legal principles shall secure an individual site for spraying liquid manure, the Defendant’s spraying of the amount generated from the resource recovery plant into a site for spraying liquid manure secured by a CF, not a site for spraying liquid manure secured by a farm that is not a site for spraying liquid manure secured by each amount of money. The Defendant’s assertion that “the act of spreading the amount generated from the facility for producing liquid manure in a place other than spraying liquid manure” under Article 17(1)5 of the Livestock Excreta Management and Use Act constitutes “the act of spreading the amount generated from the facility for spraying liquid manure outside the site where the installer of the relevant resource recovery plant has secured the liquid manure.” This is also the same as the case where CFF association established for the treatment of livestock by both farms. Therefore, the Defendant’s mistake or assertion on different premise is without merit.

3. The defendant did not have any history of punishment exceeding a fine in the past, and the defendant would not again commit such an offense while opposing his/her mistake.