The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. A summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) (hereinafter “the instant cattle shed”), the Defendant acquired a stable of 168 square meters in size from H, which operated the horse riding track in Doang-si D (hereinafter “the instant cattle shed”), and raised 12 mams as it is, using it.

In addition, the livestock shed of this case is deemed to have reported the installation of a discharge facility in accordance with Article 11, Paragraph 5 of the Building Act, as a building legally permitted by the competent authorities on May 29, 1993.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the Act on the Management and Use of Excreta, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the instant facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant did not report to the competent authority on the instant facts charged, and raised 12 marine by using livestock excreta emission facilities of a size of 168 square meters, which is subject to reporting under Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, from July 1, 2013 to April 25, 2014.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the ground that the instant livestock shed was granted a building permit on May 29, 1993 with “the livestock shed” on the ground that it does not fall under “livestock” under “the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta,” and obtained a building permit as “the livestock shed” under Article 11(5) of the Building Act, and thus, cannot be deemed as having reported the installation of discharge facilities under “the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta” under Article 11(5) of the Building Act.

(c)

(1) Article 50 Subparag. 3 (hereinafter “instant legal provision”) of the former Act on the Management and Use of Excreta (amended by Act No. 12516, Mar. 24, 2014; hereinafter “Act”) provides that “The term “this case’s legal provision”) shall not report in violation of Article 11(3) or by fraud or other improper means.”