The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that of the lower court’s punishment of KRW 1.5 million (a fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). It is recognized that the Defendant reflects his/her mistake, the Defendant did not have any history of punishment exceeding the fine, and the Defendant closed the livestock excreta storage tank that generated ruptures.

However, taking into account the above favorable circumstances in regard to the Defendant, the lower court appears to have reduced the fine of KRW 3 million to KRW 1.5 million issued in the summary order, and there is no special change in circumstances that could reduce the sentence of the lower court in the first instance time; the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, in which both the installer and operator of the discharge facility are the principal offender; and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, family relationship, health, etc., are considered, the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is not heavy.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition

(However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, it shall be corrected that "Article 50(4) and Article 11(3)" is deleted ex officio, and Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure shall be deleted.