The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenario) is that the Defendant installed a waste-generating facility without reporting in 1988 and raises the lawsuit using the waste-generating facility from that time until that time. The court below found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that Article 50 subparagraph 3 of the current Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, which provides that the Defendant may be punished for a person who raises livestock by using a non-reported waste-generating facility, is installed and used a waste-generating facility before the partial amendment, and thus, the Defendant cannot be punished by applying Article 50 subparagraph 3 of the current Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta. Although Article 50 subparagraph 3 of the current Act on the Livestock Excreta was not the person who installed a waste-generating facility at the time of the installation, the court below partially amended the Act to regulate the person who uses livestock by using a non-reported waste-generating facility after the enforcement of the Act, and thus, the court below erred

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that Article 50 subparag. 3 of the current Act on Livestock Excreta provides that “a person who installs a waste-generating facility or raises livestock using a waste-generating facility without filing a report in violation of Article 11(3) or by filing a report by fraudulent or other illegal means.” However, the Defendant already installed a waste-generating facility and uses it before the enforcement of the amended Act so that a person who raises livestock by using a waste-generating facility can be punished. Thus, Article 50 subparag. 3 of the current Act on Livestock Excreta cannot be applied, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the waste-generating facility used by the Defendant was installed after September 27, 2007 when the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Livestock Excreta