Whether the compost lodging system with the main ingredient of tin corresponds to a fertilizer under the Fertilizer Control Act.

If composts made mainly of nitrogen with composts into composts or soil, it is not a substance that would result in the improvement of soil as a result of the deterioration of organic substances in soil by promoting compostation, or decomposition of organic substances contained in soil, but it does not constitute a fertilizer under the Fertilizer Control Act, because it does not directly cause "chemical changes to plants" or "chemical changes to soil" for the purpose of giving nutrition to plants.

Article 2 of the Fertilizer Control Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants are not guilty

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case against the Defendants is that Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Defendant 2) is a juristic person for the purpose of mass processing and sale, and Defendant 1 is the representative director of the above company.

A. Defendant 1:

(1) Without permission, from March 10, 1985 to July 30 of the same year, 36,00 kilograms of 36,00 kilograms of 125 to 155 won per kilogram, from among them by producing 60,00 kilograms of crocate powder (VK) in a fertilizer, by heating crocium, Maineium, etc., composed of a large amount of six nutritional elements of plant, with a chine, calium, and calineium, etc., with a mass of 6 nutritional elements, with a method of heating crocium and calium, etc., and melting a microbes with excellent organic decomposition performance, and selling them to seeds, seedlings, farms, etc.

(2) From March 10, 1985 to April 10, 1985, a fertilizer manufacturing facility that manufactures the “VK81”, which is a fertilizer manufacturing facility, without permission from the above factory, has been installed and operated on May 13 of the same year, while the above factory has received an order to suspend operation of the fertilizer manufacturing facility from the Chungcheong Do governor, but continues to operate from that time until July 30 of the same year;

B. Defendant 2, who is the representative director, stated that Defendant 1 was the same as the above "A" in relation to the defendant's business, and that Defendant 1 was the police to install and sell "B.K (VK) 81" as stated in the facts charged, or "B.K (VK) 81" is not a fertilizer but a compost, so it does not constitute a violation of the Fertilizer Control Act. However, Defendant 2 stated that "B.K (VK) 81" in the prosecutor's office did not violate the Fertilizer Control Act because it stated that "B.K (VK) 81 was reversed as a micro-specific fertilizer and it was time for the violation of the Fertilizer Control Act, and in this court again, "B.K (VK) 81" did not constitute a fertilizer under the Fertilizer Control Act, and thus, it cannot be sold to him, and furthermore, it does not constitute a violation of the so-called order of suspension of operation under the Fertilizer Control Act.

2. Therefore, we first examine the violation of the Fertilizer Control Act.

First of all, as to whether the above "VK.81" produced and sold by Defendant 1 constitutes fertilizer under the Fertilizer Control Act, it is admitted as evidence that the above "VK.81" corresponds to or conforms to the fertilizer under the Fertilizer Control Act, and the above "VK.81" constitutes fertilizer under the Fertilizer Control Act, the prosecutor's protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant 1 of the public prosecutor's protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant 1, the prosecutor's protocol of statement as to Nonindicted 1 of the prosecutor's protocol of statement, and the statement as to Nonindicted 2 of the preparation of the judicial police assistant.

(a) As such, the term "non-indicted 1" in the protocol of interrogation of the defendant 1 is hard to say that it does not constitute a fertilizer. As such, it appears that it appears that the non-indicted 8's statement "V.K. 81" is a statement that it appears to be a fertilizer in Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Fertilizer Control Act, and that "V.K. 81" is not a fertilizer under the Fertilizer Control Act, but a non-indicted 1 of Article 1 of the Fertilizer Control Act does not constitute a "non-indicted 8's non-indicted 1's statement or non-indicted 4's statement that it does not constitute a "non-indicted 8's non-indicted 5's statement or a non-indicted 8's statement that it is clear that it does not constitute a "non-indicted 1's statement or non-indicted 1's statement that it does not constitute a non-indicted 1's own vegetable content for the purpose of affecting plants or for the cultivation of plants."

B. The prosecutor’s statement of Nonindicted 1 in the prosecutor’s protocol contains the statement that “I think I think it constitutes a fertilizer” (Article 16 of the Investigation Record) in the statement of Nonindicted 2 of the judicial police officer’s protocol, but all of these statements are not reliable in light of the above explanation as the statement of a vague conjecture or external dog without any evidence presentation.

C. If so, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 1, who is the representative director of Defendant 2, violated the Fertilizer Control Act, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant 2 violated the Fertilizer Control Act, even if Defendant 1 violated the Fertilizer Control Act.

3. Next, as to the violation of the Environmental Preservation Act, the statement in the court of law by the witness, the statement in the interrogation protocol by the public prosecutor and the assistant judicial police officers against the defendant, the statement in the interrogation protocol by the defendant and the non-indicted 7, the statement in the confirmation letter by the non-indicted 9, the copy in the order to suspend operation of the non-indicted 9, and the statement in the order to suspend operation of the non-indicted 10, respectively. However, according to the above evidence and the statement by the defendant in the trial record by the non-indicted 3,4,10, there is no evidence that the non-indicted 2 violated the above order to suspend operation under the Environmental Preservation Act, and there is no other evidence that the non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 11's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 15'.

4. Ultimately, since all of the facts charged against the Defendants constitute a case where there is no proof, all of the facts charged in this case must be pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kang Yong-sung