본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
대전지방법원 2014.07.03 2013노3278

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.


1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the part of the lower court’s determination of innocence of reasons in the mistake of facts, the capacity to store wastewater of a J farm is limited to 11,496.16 tons in light of the permit for discharge of livestock excreta, the amount of money from the J farm sludge, relevant data, and the response of public officials in charge of viewing and viewing, etc., and it is apparent that daily wastewater treatment capacity cannot be treated by more than 200 tons in accordance with the consolation money such as the permit for discharge of livestock excreta, etc. from February 201 to February 2011.

3. From the perspective of the fact that until the end of 28, there were no wastewater to be treated more than after killing all pigs of the J farm. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s legal statement that the J farm stored approximately 18,00 tons of wastewater and the Defendant treated more than 2 to 300 to 400 tons of wastewater in the J farm during the above period is clearly perjury. Meanwhile, in relation to the circumstances in which the Defendant mentioned murder as D, the testimony in the civil court and the Defendant’s prosecutorial investigation are different, and there is no consistency, such as the reversal of this, and the reversal of the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant stated it together with the Defendant, and that it is inconsistent with the Defendant’s statement, and that it was confirmed that the result of on-site verification that the Defendant’s request for the murder was not possible outside of a container, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of all the above evidence despite the apparent fact, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence (one million won of a fine) imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor's office's assertion of misunderstanding of facts had already been asserted in relation to the mistake of facts regarding the perjury of this case, and the court below's determination is sufficiently acceptable and it seems that there were errors in the judgment of the court below, when examining the circumstances properly presented by the court below.