The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 50 Subparag. 3 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that “a person who fails to report in violation of the provisions of Article 11(3) or who installs discharging facilities or raises livestock using discharging facilities in a manner that is not subject to permission, or who installs discharging facilities in excess of the size prescribed by Presidential Decree, among discharging facilities that are not subject to permission, shall report to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment.” Article 11(3) of the Act provides that a person who intends to install discharging facilities in excess of the size prescribed by Presidential Decree shall report to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment.

The phrase “discharge facilities” in the legal provision of this case is interpreted as “discharge facilities installed without filing a report in violation of the provisions of Article 11(3) of the Act.” In this context, if a person who installed the discharge facilities does not have the person subject to reporting under Article 11(3) of the Act at the time of installation, even if he/she was subject to reporting pursuant to the amendment of the Act and subordinate statutes, it cannot be deemed as “a person who intends to install discharge facilities” who is subject to reporting

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do2471, Jul. 14, 2011). Meanwhile, the instant provision provides that only a person who installed emission facilities prior to the amendment by Act No. 10973, Jul. 28, 2011, who raises livestock by “using emission facilities” through the said amendment shall be punished. The purport of the provision is that a person subject to reporting does not file a report.