The meaning of “act of discharging livestock excreta” prohibited under the former part of Article 17(1)1 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta; and whether the act of neglecting livestock in a waste-generating facility without discharging excreta in the vicinity of a waste-generating facility into a waste-generating facility constitutes such act (affirmative)

In full view of the purpose of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter “Act”), Article 2 subparag. 3 and 8, the former part of Article 17(1)1, Article 49 subparag. 2, Article 50 subparag. 4, Article 51 subparag. 1, and Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, “act of discharging livestock excreta” prohibited under the former part of Article 17(1)1 of the Act means an act of discharging livestock excreta out of a discharging facility without discharging livestock excreta into a disposal facility; even in cases where livestock excreta in a discharging facility is discharged into a nearby discharging facility, the act of discharging livestock excreta shall be construed as falling under such act if the livestock excreta is neglected without discharging it into a disposal facility.

Articles 1, 2 subparag. 3 and 8, 17(1)1, 49 subparag. 2, 50 subparag. 4, and 51 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (Amended by Act No. 12516, Mar. 24, 2014); Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta

Defendant

Defendant

Changwon Law Firm, Attorneys Yellow-don et al.

Changwon District Court Decision 2013No1034 decided December 19, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion that livestock excreta does not constitute an act of discharging livestock excreta

The purpose of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) is to contribute to the development of the livestock industry in harmony with the environment, the improvement of national health, and the environmental preservation by converting livestock excreta into resources or disposing of it properly, keeping the natural environment and living environment clean, reducing water pollution (Article 1 of the Act), and shall not discharge livestock excreta discharged from waste-generating facilities without discharging it into a disposal facility (Article 17(1)1 of the Act), and shall be punished if such violation is committed (Article 49 subparag. 2, Article 50 subparag. 4, and Article 51 subparag. 1, etc.).

Meanwhile, “waste-generating facilities” means livestock pens, playgrounds, and other places prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment (Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Act), such as livestock excreta generated from raising livestock (Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Act), and “waste-generating facilities” in this context refers to oil storage rooms, food banks, and delivery rooms (Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act), and “waste-generating facilities” in this context refers to resource recovery or purification facilities for converting livestock excreta into resources or purifying livestock excreta (Article 2 subparag. 8 of the Act).

In full view of the purpose of the Act and the contents of the above provisions, “act of discharging livestock excreta” prohibited under the former part of Article 17(1)1 of the Act refers to an act of discharging livestock excreta outside a discharging facility instead of discharging livestock excreta into a disposal facility; and even in cases where livestock in a discharging facility discharges livestock excreta into a nearby discharging facility, the act of discharging livestock excreta shall be construed as an act of neglecting it without discharging it into a disposal facility.

In this regard, the court below is just in finding that the defendant's act of leaving mil cowss raised within livestock excreta discharge facilities operated by the defendant without flowing them into the disposal facilities without flowing them into the disposal facilities while moving mil cowss that continuously fell from the milch cowss around livestock pens while drinking water into drinking water, violates the former part of Article 17 (1) 1 of the Act. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the relevant legal principles or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the assertion that the facts charged were not specified

The facts charged must be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and the purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, the facts charged is sufficient if it is stated to the extent that the facts constituting the elements of a crime can be identified by integrating these elements, and even if the date, time, place, etc. of a crime are not explicitly stated in the indictment, if the general indication is inevitable in light of the nature of the facts charged, and if it does not interfere with the defendant’s right to defense against them, the contents of the indictment cannot be deemed not to be specified (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Do1680, Dec. 9, 199; 2006Do48, Jun. 2, 2006).

In light of such legal principles and records, even if the place of discharge of livestock excreta in the facts of this case is indicated as a nearby a stable and the quantity of livestock excreta discharged is not specified, since the date, time, place, method, etc. of crime is specified to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts, the facts of this case are specified, and thus, it cannot be deemed that this may interfere with the defendant's exercise of right to defense. The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)