All the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the legal principles, Defendant A does not constitute “a person who intends to install emission facilities” or “a person who raises livestock using such emission facilities” under Article 50 subparag. 4 or 11(3) of the Act on the Management and Use of Excreta.

Even if Defendant A has a duty to report under Article 11(3) of the above Act

Even if the performance period of the duty to report under the Addenda to the above Act was not expired.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of each of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The punishment of the lower court (for each of the Defendants: KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Under Article 50 Subparag. 4 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “the instant legal provisions”), “discharge facilities” refer to “discharge facilities installed without filing a report in violation of Article 11(3) of the Act.” Here, if a person who installed the discharge facilities does not have the duty to report under Article 11(3) of the Act at the time of installation, it cannot be deemed as a “person who intends to install the discharge facilities,” who is subject to reporting under the said legal provisions, even if he/she did not have the duty to report under Article 11(3) of the Act.

Meanwhile, the instant legal provision provides that only one person who installed emission facilities shall be punished before the former Livestock Excreta Management and Use Act was amended (Act No. 10973, Jul. 28, 2011). The purport of the provision that a person who raises livestock by “using emission facilities” through the revision is to punish the person who raises livestock by means of “using emission facilities.” The purpose of the provision is to promote the balance of punishment by punishing not only the installer but also the user in cases where the “installer” installed without reporting by the person subject to reporting and the “user” are different.

As above, this case.