The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 50 Subparag. 3 (hereinafter “the Act”) of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that a person who installs a waste-generating facility or raises livestock using such waste-generating facility without reporting in violation of Article 11(3) or by reporting in a false or other unjust manner shall be punished, and Article 11(3) of the Act provides that a person who intends to install a waste-generating facility exceeding the scale prescribed by Presidential Decree among waste-generating facilities not subject to permission shall report to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment.

The phrase “discharge facilities” in the legal provision of this case is interpreted as “discharge facilities installed without filing a report in violation of Article 11(3) of the Act.” In this context, if a person who installed the discharge facilities does not have the person subject to reporting under Article 11(3) of the Act at the time of installation, even if he/she was subject to reporting pursuant to the amendment of the Act and subordinate statutes, it does not constitute “a person who intends to install discharge facilities” who is subject to reporting under

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do2471, Jul. 14, 2011). Meanwhile, the purport of the instant legal provision to punish only a person who installed emission facilities prior to being amended by Act No. 10973, Jul. 28, 2011; however, the amendment to punish a person who raises livestock by “using emission facilities” lies in cases where the “installer” and “user” of emission facilities installed without reporting.