The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenario) is as follows: (a) a person who fails to report differently from the former Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (amended by Act No. 10973, Jul. 28, 201) which is the applicable provisions of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (amended by Act No. 10973, Jul. 28, 201) concerning the facts charged in the instant case; (b) a person who raises livestock using the discharge facilities “in addition,” and who installs the discharge facilities by fraud or other improper means, thereby securing the effectiveness of administrative regulation; (c) a person who raises livestock using the discharge facilities; and (d) a person who raises livestock using the discharge facilities “it is not applicable to the person who has installed the discharge facilities” shall be deemed to fall under “the person who has raised livestock”

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operates a Korean cattle shed. A person who intends to install a breeding facility with a size of more than 100 square meters and less than 900 square meters shall report to the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without filing a report from February 2, 2012 to October 23, 2013, installed a breeding facility with a size of 180 square meters in the Northern-gu, Northern-si, Dong-si and raised 23 Mari-ri.

B. The lower court determined that the person subject to reporting under Articles 50 subparag. 3 and 11(3) of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta enacted by Act No. 8010 on Sept. 27, 2006 (hereinafter “the Livestock Excreta Act”) is “a person who intends to install a waste-generating facility exceeding the scale prescribed by the Presidential Decree or to modify the reported matters” and who installed the waste-generating facility was not a person subject to reporting at the time of installation, the lower court subsequently intended to install the waste-generating facility, even if the facility was subject to reporting pursuant to the amendment of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes.