Defendant

Defendant

Completion ceiling, foreign motion picture (public trial)

Law Firm Changwon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Changwon District Court Masan District Court Decision 2013MaMa209 decided June 11, 2013

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Although the defendant's act is only one of the milch cattle breeding process that occurs in the farm and does not constitute an act of discharging livestock excreta prohibited by the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter "the Livestock Excreta Management Act"), the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in the case of this case by misunderstanding the facts and affected the judgment

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant was made ex officio, and the prosecutor tried to apply the applicable provisions of law to the case, "Article 51 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta" and Article 17 (1) subparagraph 1 of the same Act, and applied for the amendment of the indictment to change the facts charged as stated in the following criminal facts. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of facts, and this is examined below.

B. Judgment of mistake of mistake

1) The purpose of the Livestock Excreta Management Act is to contribute to the development of the livestock industry in harmony with the environment, the improvement of national health, and the environmental conservation by converting livestock excreta into resources or disposing of it properly, keeping the natural environment and living environment clean, and reducing water pollution (Article 1). The term “waste-generating facilities” in the above Act means facilities and places that produce livestock excreta as a result of raising livestock, such as livestock pens, playgrounds, and other places prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment (Article 2 Subparag. 3); and the term “waste-generating facilities” means facilities for converting livestock excreta into resources or purification of livestock excreta (Article 2 Subparag. 7); and the person who installs waste-generating facilities shall be punished for discharging livestock excreta discharged from waste-generating facilities without discharging it into disposal facilities (Article 51 Subparag. 1 and Article 17(1)1).

2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below after compiling the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant's act constitutes an act of discharging livestock excreta under the Livestock Excreta Management Act, and the defendant can be sufficiently recognized as having discharged livestock excreta without discharging it into a disposal facility, by considering the following circumstances: (a) mil cowss raised within a stable, which is the livestock excreta waste-generating facility of this case operated by the defendant, have continuously moved to drinking water with drinking water and stored livestock excreta in a nearby a stable, which is a discharge facility by mixing with water, continuously away from milch cowss, and the transfer of livestock excreta seems to have reached a considerable degree; and (b) the defendant appears to have neglected livestock excreta stored in a disposal facility without discharging it into a disposal facility.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

No installer of a livestock excreta-generating facility shall discharge livestock excreta discharged from a waste-generating facility without discharging it into a disposal facility.

Nevertheless, on July 27, 2012, the Defendant discharged livestock excreta by neglecting livestock excreta as it is due to negligence in the course of business, without flowing it into a disposal facility, by mixing with water continuously away from the outbreak of milch cows in a livestock shed, which is a livestock excreta waste-generating facility, into a livestock excreta-generating facility, according to drinking water.

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. The defendant's certificate;

1. Statement of the Nonindicted Party

1. A accusation, a field photograph, and a video CD in violation of the relevant provision;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 51 Subparag. 1 and Article 17(1)1 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, Selection of Fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

In light of the fact that the Defendant was not intentionally discharging livestock excreta, it is recognized that the Defendant was not guilty of discharging livestock excreta, but does not seem to be genuinely against the Defendant’s mistake, such as denying the instant crime until the Defendant was in the trial. The fact that the Defendant was sentenced to fines twice due to the same kind of crime, and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, shall be determined as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-chul (Presiding Judge)