A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, while operating “I farm”, which is a swine breeding facility in Da, E, F, G, and H, obtained permission to install excreta emission facilities, including manure storage facilities and liquid manure, from the number of Hongcheon-gun on December 26, 2007.

A person who has obtained permission for the installation of a waste-generating facility shall not engage in an act of spreading any amount produced in a resource recovery plant into liquid manure in any place other than the area where the installer of the relevant resource recovery plant secures liquid manure.

Nevertheless, on October 2012, the Defendant spreaded about 10 tons of the amount produced from the “I farm” to the standard difference accumulated at the J, a place other than a place where liquid manure is spraying in the light of the date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written accusation of the number of Hongcheon-gun;

1. Permits, etc. for installation of facilities for discharging excreta, notification of the result of soil contamination inspection, delivery of the results of water quality inspection, and application of statutes on photograph site;

1. Article 49 Subparag. 2 and Article 17(1)5 of the Act on the Management and Use of Excreta of the Republic of Korea (Amended by Act No. 12516, Mar. 24, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) regarding criminal facts and the selection of punishment for imprisonment with labor

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended execution of the Criminal Act reveals that large-scale soil contamination (which shall be based on the soil removed by the Defendant only on 3,800 cubic meters) was confirmed at the place where the Defendant distributed liquid manure, the soil contamination appears to have resulted from livestock excreta in light of the result of the soil contamination inspection, and the surrounding residents complain of the damage caused by livestock excreta, etc., are elements for sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant.

However, it appears that the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime, and that the Defendant made efforts to remove the existing soil from the standard tree fluor lower parts and the surrounding areas of liquid manure and to restore contaminated soil into the original state by carrying out new soil.

It appears that the defendant has been punished for the suspension of qualification or more severe punishment, or has been punished for the same crime.