"Indictment Unlawful Due to Procedural Flaw": Supreme Court Overturns Guilty Verdict in 'Livestock Manure' Case

Additional Pollution Caused by Manure Spreading
Court Finds Orders Were 'New Administrative Actions,' Not Repetitions
Hearing Procedure Omitted Despite Changes in Content and Duration
Indictment Deemed Unlawful

The Supreme Court has ruled that, even if a city hall issues the same order multiple times, the legal procedure of hearing the parties involved cannot be omitted if the circumstances have changed in the meantime. The court found that indictments filed without following this procedure are unlawful.

According to the legal community on April 27, the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Shin Sookhee) overturned the guilty verdict from the appellate court in a case involving a farmer who was prosecuted for failing to comply with a livestock manure disposal order, and remanded the case to the Daejeon District Court.

An official from Seosan City Hall in South Chungcheong Province discovered in February 2023 that this farmer had stored, stockpiled, or buried approximately 5,400 tons of livestock manure or compost in factory buildings and other locations on his land. As a result, from April 2023 to February 2024, Seosan City Hall issued a total of five orders instructing the farmer to transfer the manure to a proper treatment facility. However, the farmer did not comply. During the enforcement process, it was further revealed that some of the manure was spread on nearby land, causing additional environmental pollution. Consequently, Seosan City Hall prosecuted the farmer for violating the Livestock Manure Control Act.

The first and second trial courts found that the orders in question were merely repeated orders and ruled that the hearing procedure could be omitted under the Administrative Procedures Act, thus finding the defendant guilty.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed. The court held that, even if an order appears to be a repetition of a previous one, if there are new violations that change the content and period of the order, it must be regarded as a separate administrative action. Skipping the hearing procedure for the defendant was considered a "procedural flaw." The Supreme Court stated, "The orders in this case were not simple repetitions but included additional measures," and emphasized, "Prior notification and an opportunity for the submission of opinions should have been provided under the Administrative Procedures Act." The court further ruled, "Therefore, an indictment based on an order issued without going through these procedures is unlawful," and overturned the lower court's decision.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.