The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) is that the defendant raised livestock using a discharge facility without filing a report in accordance with the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “former Livestock Excreta Act”) enacted by Presidential Decree No. 20290 on September 27, 2007 and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even though he/she does not fall under the "person who intends to install a discharge facility" as a person subject to reporting under Article 11(3) of the Livestock Excreta Act, who installed a dog breeding facility before being designated as a person subject to reporting on the installation of a livestock excreta discharge facility (area of at least 60 square meters) at the competent authority, and who intends to install a discharge facility, as a person subject to reporting under Article 11(3) of the Livestock Excreta Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Judgment

Article 50 Subparag. 3 of the former Livestock Excreta Act provides that “a person who installs a waste-generating facility without filing a report in violation of Article 11(3) shall be construed as “a person who intends to install a waste-generating facility or alter the reported matters in excess of the size prescribed by Presidential Decree.” If a person who installed a waste-generating facility is not a person subject to reporting under the Livestock Excreta Act at the time of installation, it shall not be construed as a person who intends to install a waste-generating facility as a person subject to reporting under Article 11(3)

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do7776, Jul. 28, 2011). Moreover, even if a person who raises livestock using a waste-generating facility installed without filing a report is added under the latter part of Article 50 subparag. 3 of the amended Livestock Excreta Act, the scope of punishment is extended, the purport of the latter part of the said Article’s provision to limit the “waste-generating facility” to “waste-generating facility.”