A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

No person who discharges, collects, transports, disposes of, or spreads livestock excreta, manure, or liquid manure shall discharge livestock, manure, or liquid manure into a public water zone by neglecting it by negligence in the course of performing his/her duties.

Nevertheless, on November 5, 2015, the Defendant, at C farm run by the Defendant in Chuncheon City B, around 11:40 to 13:20, installed a pump in advance in the process of producing liquid fertilizers using swine excreta, and should take measures so that the quantity of excreta in excess of the collection capacity would not exceed the storage tank if the excreta flows out. On the other hand, if the pump installed in C farm flows out of the river due to the malfunction of the foul waste, it should frequently check whether the foul waste flows out of the river, so that the foul waste flows out into the water tank due to negligence and the amount equivalent to 150 liters of the foul waste flow into D public waters.

Accordingly, the defendant, who is a livestock excreta-related business, discharges livestock excreta to public waters by negligence in the course of business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to written E;

1. Article 50 of the relevant Act and Articles 50, 6, and 10 (1) of the Act on the Management and Use of Excreta that has been selected as to the facts constituting an offense, and the selection of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. There are some unfavorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the observation of protection and observation, who committed the instant crime in spite of the fact that the Defendant had been already punished several times for the same kind of crime, and the Defendant again committed the instant crime in a state where the period of two months has not elapsed since the time of punishment for the previous crime.

On the other hand, the defendant reflects his mistake, and seems to have been making efforts to prevent recidivism with the crime of this case.