Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
A measure order's lawfulness as a condition of the livestock manure offence
Supreme Court, Apr. 2, 2026, 2025Do13381 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 가축분뇨의관리및이용에관한법률위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a person did not comply with a measure order issued under Article 10(2) of the Livestock Manure Management and Utilisation Act, must that order have been lawful before punishment under Article 50(ii) may follow, and is an order unlawful for want of the pre-notice and opportunity to submit opinions required by the Administrative Procedure Act unless the exception in Article 21(4)(iii) applies?
Holding
Yes. Punishment under Article 50(ii) for failing to comply with a measure order under Article 10(2) requires a lawful order, and the offence cannot be established where the order is unlawful, including where the unlawfulness is a procedural defect. An administrative agency that makes an invasive disposition without prior notice or an opportunity to submit opinions breaches the Administrative Procedure Act unless the case falls within the exceptional grounds of Article 21(4), and that exception is judged by the nature of the disposition alone, without regard to the party's admission of the violation or to any opportunity to submit opinions before the pre-notice for that disposition.
Points at issue, verbatim
가축분뇨의 관리 및 이용에 관한 법률 제10조 제2항에 따라 행정청으로부터 환경오염 방지에 필요한 조치명령을 받고 이를 불이행하였음을 이유로 같은 법 제50조 제2호에서 정한 처벌을 하기 위해서는 그 조치명령이 적법하여야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, in order to impose the punishment provided in Article 50, subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta on the ground that a person received an order from an administrative authority to take measures necessary for the prevention of environmental pollution pursuant to Article 10 (2) of the same Act and failed to comply with it, the said order must be lawful (affirmative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대전지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
여기서 ‘의견청취가 현저히 곤란하거나 명백히 불필요하다고 인정될 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 경우’에 해당하는지는 해당 행정처분의 성질에 비추어 판단하여야 하고
Unofficial English translation
Here, whether the case falls under 'a case where there is a substantial reason to deem that holding a hearing of opinions is remarkably difficult or manifestly unnecessary' must be determined in light of the nature of the relevant administrative disposition, and
Factors
- 그 조치명령이 적법하여야 하는지 여부(적극)
- 조치명령이 절차적 하자로 인하여 위법한 경우에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극)
- 당사자에게 행정절차법상의 사전통지를 하거나 의견제출의 기회를 주지 아니한 경우, 그 처분은 위법한지 여부(원칙적 적극)
- ‘의견청취가 현저히 곤란하거나 명백히 불필요하다고 인정될 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 경우’에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준
Unofficial English translation
• Whether the said order must be lawful (affirmative)
• Whether the same applies even where the order is unlawful due to a procedural defect (affirmative)
• Where the party is not given prior notice under the Administrative Procedures Act or an opportunity to submit opinions, whether the disposition is unlawful (affirmative as a rule)
• The criteria for determining whether the case falls under 'a case where there is a substantial reason to deem that holding a hearing of opinions is remarkably difficult or manifestly unnecessary'
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2020. 2. 27. 선고 2018도3547 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2018Do3547 decided February 27, 2020
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2020. 2. 27. 선고 2018도3547 판결, 대법원 2024. 1. 25. 선고 2023도12793 판결 / [1] 대법원 2017. 9. 21. 선고 2014도12230 판결 / [2] 대법원 2016. 10. 27. 선고 2016두41811 판결(공2016하, 1824)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Could the exception in Article 21(4)(iii) of the Administrative Procedure Act ever apply to a repeated measure order issued after the party has already refused to comply, given that only the nature of the disposition decides that exception?
The judgment of the Daejeon District Court on remand, once it decides whether the mayor of Seosan gave pre-notice or heard opinions before each of the five orders, will show how the requirement works in repeated orders. An amendment to Article 21 of the Administrative Procedure Act or to Article 10(2) or Article 50(ii) of the Livestock Manure Management and Utilisation Act also calls for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Could the exception in Article 21(4)(iii) of the Administrative Procedure Act ever apply to a repeated measure order issued after the party has already refused to comply, given that only the nature of the disposition decides that exception?” vs Independent “On remand, will the evidence establish that the required notice and opportunity to submit opinions were provided for each order?”
The primary asks whether repeated orders can qualify for the procedural exception, while the independent asks whether compliance with the procedures will be established on remand.
가축분뇨의 관리 및 이용에 관한 법률 제10조 제2항에 따라 행정청으로부터 환경오염 방지에 필요한 조치명령을 받고 이를 불이행하였음을 이유로 같은 법 제50조 제2호에서 정한 처벌을 하기 위해서는 그 조치명령이 적법하여야 하는지 여부(적극)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Daejeon District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 22 July 2025 (2024No3806, 2024No3807), held that each of the five measure orders of 5 April 2023, 16 May 2023, 10 August 2023, 7 November 2023 and 26 February 2024 fell within the ground in Article 21(4)(iii) of the Administrative Procedure Act, under which hearing opinions is manifestly unnecessary given the nature of the disposition. On that premise it affirmed the first-instance convictions on all counts of non-compliance.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the first order went beyond concretising the prior order, because after the defendant spread the manure on neighbouring land it imposed a new obligation not to spread it on farmland in the city. The second to fifth orders were each separate invasive dispositions issued one to three months apart, each grounding its own offence, and no change of circumstances could be ruled out, so the practical need to secure the defendant's defence could not be dismissed. It held that the court below had misapprehended the law on the offence under Article 10(2) and had not tried whether pre-notice or hearing had been given, and reversed the whole judgment for remand, unanimously.
Distinguishing conditions
- A measure order that was lawful because the administrative agency gave prior notice and an opportunity to submit opinions before it, so that no procedural defect arises.
- A disposition whose own nature gives substantial reason to think that hearing opinions is manifestly difficult or manifestly unnecessary, since that ground is judged by the nature of the disposition alone.
- A later order that only concretises an earlier order without adding a separate obligation and without changing the performance period, since the Court found the first order to go beyond mere concretisation.
Record verification notes
Set each order in the file against the record of the pre-notice said to precede it, with the dates of service and the content notified, since the Court examined the orders one by one. Mark what each order added to the one before it and how long the interval was, as the Court relied on the new obligation in the first order and the gaps of one to three months in the rest. Then check whether the defendant was completing the orders only around the close of first-instance argument, since the Court treated that as going to the practical need to secure the defence.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 가축분뇨의 관리 및 이용에 관한 법률 제10조 제2항에 따라 행정청으로부터 환경오염 방지에 필요한 조치명령을 받고 이를 불이행하였음을 이유로 같은 법 제50조 제2호에서 정한 처벌을 하기 위해서는 그 조치명령이 적법하여야 하는지 여부(적극) / 위 조치명령이 위법한 경우, 같은 법 제10조 제2항 위반죄가 성립하는지 여부(소극) 및 이는 조치명령이 절차적 하자로 인하여 위법한 경우에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극) [2] 행정청이 침해적 행정처분을 하면서 당사자에게 행정절차법상의 사전통지를 하거나 의견제출의 기회를 주지 아니한 경우, 그 처분은 위법한지 여부(원칙적 적극) / 이때 사전통지나 의견청취를 하지 않을 수 있는 예외 사유인 ‘의견청취가 현저히 곤란하거나 명백히 불필요하다고 인정될 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 경우’에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, in order to impose the punishment provided in Article 50, subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta on the ground that a person received an order from an administrative authority to take measures necessary for the prevention of environmental pollution pursuant to Article 10 (2) of the same Act and failed to comply with it, the said order must be lawful (affirmative) / where the said order is unlawful, whether the offense of violating Article 10 (2) of the same Act is established (negative), and whether the same applies even where the order is unlawful due to a procedural defect (affirmative) [2] Where an administrative authority makes an adverse administrative disposition without giving the party prior notice under the Administrative Procedures Act or an opportunity to submit opinions, whether the disposition is unlawful (affirmative as a rule) / the criteria for determining whether the case falls under the exceptional ground for not giving prior notice or a hearing of opinions, namely 'a case where there is a substantial reason to deem that holding a hearing of opinions is remarkably difficult or manifestly unnecessary'
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대전지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 가축분뇨의 관리 및 이용에 관한 법률 제10조 제2항, 제50조 제2호 / [2] 행정절차법 제21조 제1항, 제3항, 제4항 제3호, 제22조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger