[1] The principle of interpretation of the administrative law in a case where the administrative law provides for the matters subject to the penal law

[2] The meaning of "person subject to reporting under Article 11 (3)" under Article 50 subparagraph 3 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, and whether the installer of a waste-generating facility constitutes a person subject to reporting pursuant to Article 11 (3) of the same Act where the person subject to reporting was not at the time of installation, but thereafter constitutes a person subject to reporting under Article 11 (3) of the same Act (negative)

[3] The case affirming the judgment below which found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that, in case where the Defendant, a dog breeding business operator, was prosecuted for failing to report the installation of a livestock excreta discharge facility to the competent authority, on the ground that the Defendant, who was not subject to reporting at the time of installation of a discharge facility, did not constitute a person subject to reporting under Article 11 (3) of the same Act, since

[1] Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 11(3) and 50 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta / [3] Articles 11(3) and 50 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, Article 8, [Attachment 2], Article 2(1) of the Addenda ( September 27, 2007), Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6535 Decided February 27, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 578) Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4582 Decided June 29, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1225) Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4946 Decided December 9, 2010 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5895 Decided March 9, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 915) (Gong2009Do12728 Decided January 28, 2010)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 2009No932 Decided July 17, 2009

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The interpretation of penal provisions must be strict, and the interpretation of the meaning of the express provision to the disadvantage of the defendant is not permitted as it is in violation of the principle of no punishment without the law, and it is also applied likewise to the interpretation of the administrative law in a case where the contents of the provisions of the administrative law subject to the penal provisions are contents (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do6535, Feb. 27, 2004; 2006Do4582, Jun. 29, 2007).

Article 50 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”) provides that “a person who installs a waste-generating facility without filing a report in violation of Article 11(3) or after filing a report by fraudulent or other illegal means,” and Article 11(3) of the Livestock Excreta Act provides that “a person who intends to install a waste-generating facility exceeding the scale prescribed by Presidential Decree, among discharge facilities not subject to permission under paragraph (1), shall file a report with the head of a Si/Gun/Gu as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment. The same shall also apply to an amendment to the reported matters.” Article 50 subparag. 3 of the Livestock Excreta Act provides that “a person who intends to install a waste-generating facility beyond the scale prescribed by Presidential Decree or a person who has installed the waste-generating facility, even if the person is not a person subject to reporting at the time of the installation, shall not be deemed to fall under “a person who intends to install the waste-generating facility” under Article 11(3) of the Livestock Excreta Act.

2. The facts charged in the instant case reveal that “The Defendant did not report the installation of a discharge facility subject to reporting to the competent authority until September 27, 2008, although the breeding business operator who raises a dog with a breeding area of not less than 60m2m2 in a facility of not less than 132m2, which raises 70m2 in the area of raising 132m2 in the area of raising 70m2 from the Simpo-si (number omitted),” the Defendant did not report the installation of a discharge facility subject to reporting to the competent authority.”

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below can not interpret the meaning of "a person who intends to install and operate discharge facilities in excess of the size prescribed by Presidential Decree", which is subject to punishment under Article 50 subparagraph 3 of the Livestock Excreta Act, including "a person who has installed and operated such facilities without a person subject to reporting at the time of installation." Meanwhile, Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Livestock Excreta Act (Presidential Decree No. 20290, Sept. 27, 2007) provides that "a person who installed and operates discharge facilities subject to reporting under Article 8 and [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Decree at the time this Decree enters into force shall file a report on installation of discharge facilities under Article 11 (3) of the Act, which is subject to punishment, shall not be construed as "a person subject to reporting on installation of discharge facilities" under Article 11 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Livestock Excreta Act and shall not be construed as "a person subject to reporting at the time of installation and operation of discharge facilities," and shall not be construed as a person subject to reporting under the Act.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of Article 50 subparag. 3 and 11(3) of the Livestock Excreta Act or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the limitation of delegation of the principle of no punishment without law and the limitation of delegation of authority

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)