logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.05.22 2013노2613
가축분뇨의관리및이용에관한법률위반
Text

The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

(Lawios) The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that a person subject to reporting under Articles 50 subparag. 8 and 11(3) of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (amended by Act No. 12516, Mar. 24, 2014; hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”) falls under cases where the livestock excreta Act was enacted on September 27, 2007 (the date of the enactment of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which was enacted on September 27, 2006; and that “a person who installed a dog raising facility with an area of not less than 60 square meters” was not subject to punishment as a person who installed a dog raising facility before the facility.

However, the instant case, in light of the Defendant’s duty to prevent livestock excreta from being discharged into public waters without filing a report on the head of the Si/Gun, etc. as prescribed by the Livestock Excreta Act while operating a dog farm on May 13, 2013, which is the subject of a report on the discharge of livestock wastewater, and the fact that the Defendant discharges livestock excreta, which is a livestock, into public waters, in violation of his/her duty not to be properly disposed of due to occupational negligence, cannot be evaluated as identical to the fact that the crime of non-report on the discharge of livestock excreta is not reported. In light of Articles 49 and 50 of the same Act and the legislative purpose and contents of the Enforcement Decree of the Livestock Excreta Act, where a person who operates a waste-generating facility over a certain scale flows livestock excreta into public waters, regardless of being reported, the obligation to report is imposed on the installer of the waste-generating facility prior to September 27, 2007.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged that the defendant cannot be deemed as a person subject to reporting under the Livestock Excreta Act, and acquitted the facts charged in this case.

Judgment

Article 50 of the Livestock Excreta Act.

arrow