The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court asserts that the lower court’s reasonable reasoning for sentencing is unreasonable, on the grounds that the Defendant, under the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”), may directly install a livestock excreta disposal facility or entrust the disposal of livestock excreta to a person who operates a merat farm with the Defendant. Therefore, the lower court that deemed the Defendant to have considered the circumstance that the Defendant did not have a livestock excreta disposal facility at a disadvantage to the Defendant.

However, the court below pointed out that the defendant was a person who operates a merat farm above a certain size, and thus failed to report the installation of discharge facilities under the Livestock Excreta Act despite his duty to report the installation of discharge facilities under the Livestock Excreta Act, and it is recognized that the defendant failed to report the installation

Furthermore, in light of the fact that the defendant was punished for a crime that did not report the installation of waste-generating facilities, and the Livestock Excreta Act punishs a person who did not report the installation of waste-generating facilities without permission more than an act of discharging waste-generating facilities without permission (see Article 49 subparag. 4 of the Livestock Excreta Act and Article 50 subparag. 5 of the Livestock Excreta Act), etc., the circumstance that the defendant did not report the installation of waste-generating facilities is unfavorable to the defendant. Thus, the defendant's allegation is without merit.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., we look at the fact that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court, since new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial.