The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta”) was partially amended around July 28, 201, stating that a person who raises livestock using a discharge facility without obtaining permission or filing a report on the grounds of the amendment should be punished. However, even if the Defendant raised livestock in the present place from around 1993 and does not constitute “a person who intends to install a discharge facility” and falls under Article 50 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that it is obvious that the Defendant fell under Article 50 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta as “the person who raises livestock using a discharge facility installed without filing a report.”

2. On July 15, 2014, prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined the case in question, and on July 15, 2014, the charge is that “A person who intends to install a breeding facility with a size of at least 60 square meters shall file a report on the installation of a livestock excreta discharge facility with the competent authority, and shall not raise livestock using a non-report-generating facility. The Defendant raised a dog from around 1993 to around 10 July 10, 201 without filing any report even though the instant breeding facility was installed with a livestock excreta discharge facility from September 27, 2007 to around 30 square meters. Notwithstanding the fact that a penal provision for raising livestock by using a discharge facility without reporting it from around July 28, 2011 was newly established, the Defendant did not file an application for changes with the competent authority during the period from around 1993 to July 10, 2013.