Defendant

Oral research (prosecution), Gosia (public trial)

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Facts charged;

A person who intends to install a dog raising facility with a size of at least 60 square meters shall file a report on the installation of a livestock excreta discharge facility with the competent authority. However, the Defendant, without filing a report on the installation of a livestock excreta discharge facility with the competent authority on March 21, 2013, installed approximately 63.36 square meters in total in the site area of about 80 square meters, and raised about 30-40 square meters in a 800 square meters in a building site.

2. Determination

A. In the former Act on the Disposal of Sewage, Excreta and Livestock Wastewater (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Sewerage Act, Act No. 8014, Sept. 27, 2006), which applied with respect to the report, etc. of the installation of livestock wastewater discharge facilities prior to the enactment of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta by Act No. 8010 on Sept. 27, 2006, there were no provisions on open raising facilities in relation to the discharge facilities subject to the report. Since then, the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta was enacted, and the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta was enacted by Presidential Decree No. 20290 on Sept. 27, 2007, and the Act was established as a livestock excreta discharge facility subject to the report. Meanwhile, Article 1 of the Addenda to the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (Act No. 8010, Sep. 27, 2006) stipulates that “after the enactment of the Act, the date of its promulgation.”

B. Article 50 subparagraph 3 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta provides that "a person who intends to install or alter any of the matters reported in excess of the scale prescribed by Presidential Decree" means a person who intends to install or alter any of the matters reported. If a person who installed a waste-generating facility is not a person subject to reporting at the time of the installation, it shall not be deemed that a person subject to reporting pursuant to Article 11 (3) of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta falls under "a person who intends to install or operate a waste-generating facility" as a person subject to reporting pursuant to Article 11 (3) of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta, and it shall not be deemed that Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Act ( September 27, 2007) provides that "a person who installs or operates a waste-generating facility subject to reporting shall file a report on the installation of a waste-generating facility pursuant to Article 11 (3) of the Act by September 27, 2008."

C. According to the records and arguments in this case, the defendant may recognize the fact that he installed the instant dog breeding facility before being designated as a discharge facility subject to the report under the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta (the defendant has raised a dog in the present place from about 10 years before the police investigation). The defendant stated in this court that "at the time of the police investigation, he has raised a dog in the present place from around 1995 or from around 1996." Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to fall under "a person who intends to install a discharge facility" under Article 11 (3) of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta. Thus, the defendant does not fall under the punishment of Article 50 subparagraph 3 of the same Act.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the

Judges Kang Han-ro