Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant

The closure of the State, the final leather, and the public trial;

Law Firm Gyeong-ho, Attorney Kim Young-ho

1. Jeonju District Court Decision 2014DaMa199, 2014 Godan515 (Consolidated) decided January 27, 2015; / 2. Jeonju District Court Decision 2015 Godan35 decided September 1, 2015

The guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 7,00,000 and a fine of KRW 1,500,000, respectively.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 100,000 per day into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Of the facts charged against the Defendants, each of the invalidation of indication in the line of duty by shipping 349dus from July 2012 to November 27, 2013, the mother money from July 2012 to November 27, 2013, shall be acquitted.

The summary of the judgment of innocence shall be disclosed to the Defendants.

The prosecutor's appeal concerning the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants

1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles - As to the guilty portion of the judgment of the first instance

A) violation of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta - Defendant 1

① While Defendant 1 purchased the instant farm from Nonindicted 2 on December 14, 2011 and raised pigs, Nonindicted 1 completed the execution of delivery on the instant farm on January 31, 2013 based on the ownership. Defendant 1 was temporarily leased and used the instant farm from Nonindicted 1 until March 2013, and did not use the instant storage tank to Nonindicted 1. As such, Defendant 1 was not liable for the management of the instant storage tank from April 2013.

(2) Article 50 subparagraph 5 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter referred to as the “livestock Excreta Act”) provides that a person who has obtained permission or permission for alteration under Article 11 (1) or (2), who has failed to undergo a completion inspection in violation of Article 15, or who has obtained permission or permission for alteration of a livestock excreta-related business under Article 28 (1) shall be the subject of an act, and the defendant shall not be subject to such act.

B) Invalidity of an official indication - Defendants

The effect of the provisional injunction on possession of this case is that only a specific cap 440 dus and 1560 dus on the specified cap, and even if pigs other than the specified two dus are sold, it does not violate the provisional injunction in this case. The use of and right to benefit from the use of and right to benefit from the dus, natural fruits, are against Defendant 1 in accordance with the provisional injunction in this case, and the Defendants sought the horses from the enforcement officer that the money other than the specified two dus may be shipped out, and thus, there was no intention to nullify the indication of official duty.

In addition, the head of 119 head of 119 head of her mother money was entrusted to Nonindicted Corporation 4, a company dealing with Taedon money, and it cannot be deemed that the act of removing Taedon was impairing the utility of the provisional disposition in this case.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below as follows is too unreasonable.

A) Defendant 1

The first instance court: 4 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended execution, and 3 million won of fine;

2. Judgment of the court below: 3 million won

B) Defendant 2

1. Judgment of the court below: 5 million won

B. Prosecutor - Legal principles as to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the second instance

The object of the provisional disposition of this case is not simply a simple meaning of individual maternity and money, but a set of pigs that increases, decreases or changes overall, and if not, the meaning of the provisional disposition for realizing and preserving the judicial rights in the future becomes extinct by the passage of the time.

Therefore, since the Defendants’ act of disposal is included in the subject of the instant provisional disposition, the Defendants’ act constitutes a crime of invalidation of indication in the line of duty, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that acquitted the Defendants of this part of the charges, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Ex officio determination

Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, Defendant 1 filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of each of the above appeal cases. Since the crime of Defendant 1 in the judgment of the court of first instance and the crime of the guilty part in the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one of the concurrent crimes under Article 38 of the Criminal Act should be sentenced within the scope of aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 38 of the Criminal Act, in this respect, the part against Defendant 1 in the judgment of the court of first instance and the guilty part in the judgment of the court

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the judgment of the first instance and misapprehension of legal principles as to the portion of acquittal among the judgment of the prosecutor of the second instance is still subject to the judgment of the

3. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta

1) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1 is a person engaged in livestock farming business, and is a person who actually operates a swine breeding facility in front of the 1st day of Jung-Eup, 195 with permission to install livestock excreta discharge facilities on December 1, 1995.

A person who raises livestock shall not ensure that livestock excreta not properly disposed of flows into public waters.

Nevertheless, Defendant 1 caused the collapse of the roof of the livestock excreta storage tank installed in the said swine breeding facility due to heavy snow around November 28, 2013 due to occupational negligence that did not properly manage the said swine breeding facility, thereby allowing approximately two tons of livestock excreta stored in the said storage facility to flow it into public waters.

(ii) the facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts are recognized:

A) On December 1, 1995, Non-Indicted 1 sold the instant farm to Non-Indicted 2 on January 18, 2007, as to livestock raising facilities comprised of livestock pens, composts, and managers, etc. (hereinafter “the instant farm”), including the instant storage house, which was located in the regular Eup city ( Address 2 omitted), as a person who obtained permission to install livestock excreta discharge facilities pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Livestock Excreta Act, and on January 18, 2007, the instant farm was sold to Non-Indicted 2 for KRW 1.3 billion.

B) On December 14, 2011, Defendant 1 purchased from Nonindicted 2 the instant farm and pigs amounting to KRW 1.95 million, and raised pigs from the instant farm. The main contents of the sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) are as follows.

On December 9, 2011, the purchase price of a building in this case is KRW 1.95 billion. 2. The purchase price of the building in this case is KRW 50 million and KRW 300 million shall be paid on December 12, 2011. The remainder on December 3, 2011 shall be acquired at KRW 1.6 billion as the establishment price of real estate to be purchased and registered on January 31, 2012, and the acquisition of the establishment is ordered and the registration is ordered on January 31, 2012 (in cases of foreign company 5: KRW 90 million, KRW 30 million, KRW 400 million, KRW 1.6 billion, KRW 1.40 million, KRW 1.440,000, KRW 1,560, KRW 200,000, KRW 500,000 shall be excluded from the seller’s liability and termination of the registration of other real estate.

C) At the time of the instant sales contract, livestock excreta was set at 80 to 90%, but Nonindicted 2 entrusted Nonindicted 7, a livestock excreta recycling business entity, to dispose of 466 tons of livestock excreta of the instant storage by February 6, 2012. Thereafter, Nonindicted 7 disposed of livestock excreta of the instant storage at the commission of Defendant 1 until January 2013.

D) Meanwhile, on the other hand, Nonindicted Party 1 filed a lawsuit against Nonindicted Party 2 claiming the cancellation of a sales contract concluded with Nonindicted Party 2 and received a judgment of winning part of the lawsuit seeking restitution. On January 31, 2013, Nonindicted Party 1 completed delivery of eight unregistered buildings, including the instant storage house, among the instant farms.

E) Accordingly, on January 31, 2013, Defendant 1 continued to raise pigs by leasing 8 units of the above unregistered building from Nonindicted 1 to KRW 2.5 million monthly rent. Until April 2013, Defendant 1 paid KRW 5 million for two months to Nonindicted 1.

F) On May 28, 2014, Nonindicted Party 1 filed a lawsuit against Defendant 1 seeking the delivery of eight unregistered buildings, including the instant storage house, and the return of rent of KRW 32.5 million and unjust enrichment from April 1, 2013 to April 31, 2014, and on October 1, 2014, the conciliation was concluded that “Defendant 1 shall deliver eight unregistered buildings to Nonindicted 1 by December 31, 2014, and pay KRW 10 million.”

3) Determination

A) First, in light of the allegation that Defendant 1 was not responsible for the management of the instant storage tank by delivering the instant storage tank to Nonindicted Party 1 after April 2013, in light of the above recognized facts and the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, Defendant 1’s failure to manage the instant farm including the instant storage tank on November 28, 2013, even if Defendant 1 raised pigs while substantially managing the instant farm, it can be sufficiently recognized that the livestock excreta stored in the storage tank of this case was discharged into public waters due to occupational negligence, such as adequate maintenance of livestock excreta load, and maintenance of facilities safely.

① Nonindicted 2, while selling the instant farm, arranged and delivered the instant storage tank to Defendant 1. Defendant 1 entrusted the disposal of livestock excreta of the instant storage tank by January 2013, but did not later dispose of livestock excreta of the instant storage structure.

② On January 31, 2013, Nonindicted Party 1 completed delivery of eight unregistered buildings, including the instant storage house, but Defendant 1 continued to lease the eight unregistered buildings from Nonindicted Party 1 on the same day and used them for the purpose of breeding pigs.

③ Defendant 1 recognized that, even after around April 2013, he had raised pigs in some livestock pens, etc. except the unregistered building portion of the instant farm. Defendant 1 appears to have no adequate facilities capable of disposing of livestock excreta in addition to the instant farm. Considering the structure, size, etc. of the instant farm, it is difficult to deem that Nonindicted 1 separately occupied and managed only the unregistered building, such as the instant storage tank, etc.

④ In the conciliation process established between Nonindicted 1 and Defendant 1, Defendant 1 decided to deliver it to Nonindicted 1 by December 31, 2014, on the premise that Defendant 1 occupied the storage tank, etc. of this case.

B) Next, as to the assertion that Defendant 1 does not fall under the subject of the act stipulated in Article 50 subparag. 5 of the Livestock Excreta Act, Article 50 subparag. 5 of the Livestock Excreta Act provides that the person who has obtained permission or permission for alteration under Article 11(1) or (2) shall be punished for the act of bringing livestock excreta into public waters by negligence in the course of business by a person who has obtained permission or permission for alteration of a livestock excreta-related business under Article 28(1). The fact that the person who obtained permission for installation of discharge facilities of the instant farm is Nonindicted 1 is the same as seen earlier.

However, Article 14 of the Livestock Excreta Act provides that when a facility operator transfers waste-generating facilities, the transferee succeeds to the status of the former facility operator. Thus, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 1 is subject to Article 50 subparag. 5 of the Livestock Excreta Act as a person who obtained permission for the installation of waste-generating facilities under Article 11(1) of the Livestock Excreta Act and obtained permission for the installation of waste-generating facilities under Article 50 subparag. 5 of the Livestock Excreta Act as a person who acquired the instant farm from Nonindicted 1 and another person who actually managed the instant farm on November 28, 2013, the date indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, by acquiring the instant farm again from Nonindicted 2 who acquired the instant farm from Nonindicted 1.

C) Therefore, the court below did not err in finding Defendant 1 guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the above argument by Defendant 1 is without merit.

B. As to the invalidity of indication in the line of duty

1) Summary of the facts charged

On December 14, 2011, Defendant 1 purchased 1.6 billion won for the purchase of the land, building, and pigs 2,000 (4.4.40 billion won for the purchase of the ○○ farm located in the ( Address 3 omitted) regular Eup from Nonindicted 8 (Nonindicted 2’s wife) and KRW 1.95 billion for the purchase of KRW 1.6 billion for Nonindicted 8’s debt (Nonindicted 5.9 billion for the company, KRW 6.3 billion for the company, and KRW 40 million for the company, KRW 350 million for the △△ Community, and KRW 20 million for the remainder of KRW 350 million for the Defendant 1’s relative. Defendant 2 is the manager of the above farm as Defendant 1’s relative.

On April 25, 2012, Defendant 1’s non-performance of the terms of the above contract, and Nonindicted 8 filed a provisional injunction against the transfer of corporeal movables to the said pigs with the Jeonju District Court’s U.S. on April 25, 2012, and on May 22, 2012, Defendant 1 adjusted the following: “Until the judgment of this case (the same court No. 2012Gahap414) is issued, Defendant 1 did not move to another farm and outside, and only if Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 6 sell the said money to meet the payment obligations of feed to Nonindicted Company 6.” On June 19, 2012, Nonindicted 9 of the above court’s enforcement officer notified Defendant 2 of the purport of provisional injunction, indicating the above provisional injunction and attached it to Defendant 1 on the condition that the enforcement officer did not change the present state of the execution subject matter, and attached a written notice of provisional injunction.

Nevertheless, around November 8, 2013, Defendant 1 instructed Nonindicted Co. 3 to ship his own money in the farm to Nonindicted Co. 4, even though Defendant 1 was not for Defendant 2’s purpose to pay his debt owed by Defendant 1 by phoneing to Defendant 2 in the vicinity of Sejong City, and ordered Nonindicted Co. 4 to ship his dead money.

Accordingly, around November 27, 2013, Defendant 2, at the above ○ farm, shipped KRW 349 to Nonindicted Co. 37,325,000 for the repayment of the obligation incurred while Defendant 2 operated the ○ farm. From July 2012 to November 27, 2013, Defendant 2, from the above ○ farm, shipped KRW 97 to Nonindicted Co. 4 for the purpose of using the ○ farm as funds for the operation of the farm.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion with the public official about their duties, thereby impairing the utility of seizure and other compulsory dispositions.

2) The judgment of the court below

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by taking account of the following evidence.

3) The judgment of this Court

A) Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts are recognized:

① On December 14, 2011, Defendant 1 purchased 2,000 head of the pigs 2,00 (440 head of the mother, 1,560 head of the mother, 1,560 head of the mother, who was the husband of Nonindicted 8, from Nonindicted 2, who was the husband of the instant farm, and Defendant 2 managed the instant farm in accordance with Defendant 1’s instructions ( contrary to the facts charged, the seller of the instant sales contract under the sales contract is not Nonindicted 8 but Nonindicted 2).

② Around April 2012, Nonindicted 2 filed a lawsuit against Defendant 1 seeking the return of the instant farm and pigs by asserting the rescission of the instant sales contract, following the rescission of the sales contract, and filed an application for provisional disposition seeking the prohibition of possession and transfer of pigs with the right to claim restitution as a preserved right, and the following adjustment was concluded in the procedure of the said provisional disposition on May 22, 2012.

Defendant 1’s statement in the main text of this case (a) until the judgment on the merits of this case is rendered, Defendant 1’s possession of the maternity and self-paid money listed in the attached list is released, and Defendant 1’s custody is ordered to the enforcement officer delegated by Nonindicted 2. (b) The enforcement officer is obliged to change the present state and use it. (c) Defendant 1 should not transfer his possession to another person or change his title of possession. However, where Defendant 1 sells his own money for the purpose of repaying the payment of feed payments to Nonindicted 5 Stock Company and Nonindicted 6 Stock Company, Defendant 1 shall be allowed to take out the money listed in the attached list 2. Where Defendant 1 takes out his money for other than the above purpose, the release of the money thereafter is limited to the case where Nonindicted 2 consented.

③ On June 19, 2012, an enforcement officer of the Jeonju District Court’s branch branch of the Eup issued the instant farm with Defendant 2, who shown the above protocol of mediation, and delivered 440 Modle and 1,560 Modle, Defendant 1, subject to the condition that it does not change the present situation, permitted Defendant 1 to use it, and publicly announced the purpose of provisional disposition by attaching a written notice to the livestock shed.

④ While continuing the operation of the instant farm, Defendant 2 sold to Nonindicted Co. 4, a company managing Taedon, for KRW 57,325,000 on July 1, 2012 through November 1, 2013, a total of KRW 10,000 or KRW 10,000,000, the mother money born from July 201 to November 1, 2013. On November 1, 2013, Defendant 2 sold KRW 349,00 to Nonindicted Co. 3 to pay for the amount of feed.

B) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the right to receive the provisional disposition of this case is the right to claim restitution following the cancellation of the sales contract of this case. The object of restitution by the method of return of originals is a specific swine delivered by Nonindicted 2 to Defendant 1 according to the sales contract of this case. (Article 102(1) of the Civil Act) The new amount of money given birth from the originals of this case belongs to the right holder at the time of separation from the originals (Article 102(1) of the Civil Act). The object of the provisional disposition of this case is the object of the provisional disposition of this case, which is the object of the provisional disposition of this case lawfully using the mothers of this case pursuant to Article 2(b) of the above mediation protocol, and it is not recognized that the new amount of the provisional disposition of this case was the two parts of the mothers and its own money and the new amount of the provisional disposition of this case, which affected the conclusion of the new provisional disposition of the provisional disposition of this case's transfer of the originals to Defendant 1, even if it did not have an effect on the new provisional disposition of this case's disposal.

However, the instant sales contract was concluded on December 14, 201, and on May 22, 2012, the adjustment in the instant provisional disposition procedure was made on May 22, 2012, and the Defendants’ act of disposing of the Defendant’s maternity and treasury money was conducted from July 2012 to November 2013. In light of the number of years of use and the number of times of the livestock of pigs, which can be found by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it is naturally anticipated that there was a change in the number of mother and treasury money due to the birth of new pigs and the death of mother pigs. According to the above adopted evidence, a large number of children were born or mother money was naturally discarded after the instant provisional disposition, and the Defendants purchased approximately 170 math from February 2, 2012 to April 2012.

Considering the above, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants’ disposal act constitutes the mother money and its own money, which is the object of the instant provisional disposition, and it is difficult to conclude that the Defendants’ disposal act would impair the effectiveness of the instant provisional disposition, or the Defendants’ intent to nullify the indication of official duty is not recognized.

Therefore, although this part of the facts charged constitute a case without proof of crime, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of prosecutor

A. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the charges is as follows: (a) Nonindicted 8 and Defendant 1 notified on June 19, 2012 to the effect that Nonindicted 9 had to present the above protocol and make a provisional disposition against Defendant 2 on the part of the Jeonju District Court’s branch court’s enforcement officer Nonindicted 8 and Defendant 1 in accordance with the protocol of mediation regarding the provisional disposition prohibiting the possession transfer of corporeal movables; (b) Defendant 1 was released from possession of the subject matter of provisional disposition on the condition that the enforcement officer would not change the present state of the subject matter of execution after delivery; (c) Defendant 1 was allowed to use the subject matter of provisional disposition on the condition that the execution officer did not change the present state of the subject matter of execution after delivery; and (d) the Defendants conspired and publicly announced the purport of the instant provisional disposition on April 12:00, 2014.

B. However, as seen in Paragraph 3(b)(iii) of this case, the subject matter of the instant provisional disposition is limited to specific pigs located in the farm at the time of the notification of the provisional disposition, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to readily conclude that 26 duss of the Defendants disposed of on April 1, 2014, which was about 22 months after the date of the notification of the instant provisional disposition, fall under the self-paid amount of the subject matter of the instant provisional disposition.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the above disposal by the Defendants would impair the effectiveness of the provisional disposition of this case, or that the Defendants would not have the intent to nullify the indication of official duty, and the court below is justified in finding the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the Prosecutor’s assertion

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant 1 and the part of the judgment of the court of second instance regarding the conviction among the judgment of the court of second instance, and there are reasons for the appeal by the Defendants as to the invalidation of indication in the line of duty among the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part not guilty and the remaining crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance are treated as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one punishment is reversed in its entirety. Therefore, without examining the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing, the part of the judgment of the court of first and the judgment of the court of second instance regarding the conviction among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

1. Violation of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta - Defendant 1;

(a)as described in paragraph 3(a)(i).

B. On May 14, 2014, the Defendant received an order of administrative disposition from the regular Eup market to remove sediment in the storage room located in the instant ○○ farm until June 9, 2014, and to submit a report on performance of the improvement order at the time of completion of improvement. Since the Defendant applied for an extension of the implementation period of the improvement order, the Defendant extended the implementation period from June 9, 2014 to July 3, 2014, the Defendant was obligated to implement the improvement order until July 3, 2014 and submit a report on performance of the improvement order to the regular viewing. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not submit a report on performance of the improvement order by July 3, 2014.

2. Definating;

A. Defendant 1

At around 12:00 on April 16, 2014, the Defendant, at the above ○○ farm, made a dispute with the victim Nonindicted 8 due to the issue of the shipment of pigs, including Nonindicted 12, etc., and made a public insult of the victim by saying, “The victim was replaced by fraud. In addition, whether Nonindicted 1’s test, fraud, or fraud was made.”

B. Defendant 2

1) On April 16, 2014, at around 12:00, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by publicly insulting the victim on the ground that there are five persons, such as Nonindicted 12, etc. in the instant ○ farm, such as the cargo article 12, etc., due to the issue of the shipment of pigs with Nonindicted 8 of the victim, while engaging in a dispute with the victim, the victim said that “the victim was replaced by fraud.”

2) On May 8, 2014, around 15:00, the Defendant, at the above ○ farm around 15:0, told the victim Nonindicted 8 as “the change is a fraud. It is a change in other’s sales of other things. It is a change in other things,” and publicly insulting the victim.

【No. 1-A】

1. Each of the original judgments made by the witness Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 1, and Defendant 2

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 7

1. A real estate sales contract;

1. Flightmanship;

1. Current building status map;

1. Each report on investigation;

[Article 1-2]

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Report on the criminal place;

1. Guidance and public notice for extension of the improvement period;

1. Application for extension of the improvement period;

1. Official text of an administrative disposition;

[No. 2]

1. The defendants' oral statement in the court below

1. Statement of the police statement on Nonindicted 8

1. Recording notes;

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

(a) Defendant 1: Article 50 subparagraph 5 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, Article 10 (Entry of Public Waters into Public Waters, Selection of Fines), Article 50 subparagraph 7 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, Article 17 (4) (Non-performance of Improvement Order, Selection of Fines) of the Criminal Act, Article 311 (Contempt of Punishment, Selection of Fines) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant 2: each Criminal Code Article 311 (Selection of Fine)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)

(Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act with respect to the crime No. 1-B of the Judgment with respect to Defendant 1

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants led to the confession of the offense of insult in this case; (b) there is no record of being punished by a fine or heavier punishment; (c) favorable circumstances, such as the background and consequence of the occurrence of the offense of insult in this case; (d) Defendant 1 did not properly dispose of livestock excreta while Defendant 1 operated the farm; and (e) the Defendants committed the crime in this case without disposing of livestock excreta; (b) the Defendants committed the crime in this case; (c) Defendant 1 was sentenced to a fine due to the violation of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta; and (d) again committed the crime in this case despite the fact that Defendant 1 had the record of being sentenced to a fine due to the violation of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta; and (e) the victims of insult were punished by the Defendants; and (e) other unfavorable circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, character and behavior, living environment

Of the facts charged against the Defendants, the summary of the invalidation of indication in the line of duty by shipping 97 the mother money from July 27, 2012 to November 27, 2013 as stated in the above Paragraph (3) (b) (i) is as follows. As seen in the above Paragraph (3) (b)(b)(iii) above, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, and thus, the Defendants are acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment on the acquittal portion against the Defendants pursuant to Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act is publicly announced.

Judges Park Chang-chul(Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The phrase “ November 27, 2013.” written in the facts charged appears to be a clerical error.