1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: "The defendant's operator of the fertilizer production business, and the person who keeps wastes does not pollute the surrounding environment, such as not discharging industrial water in accordance with the methods and criteria prescribed by Presidential Decree. However, around August 31, 2007, the court found the above facts charged not guilty on the ground that the liquid fertilizer stored as raw materials in the above factory does not constitute waste under the Wastes Control Act, because it did not cut off to prevent rainwater, etc., and caused the Aminosansan Dumsan Dumsan Dusan Dusan Dums and the industrial effluent, etc. to flow into the surrounding farmland of the above factory." Thus, the court below acquitted the above facts charged on the ground that the above liquid fertilizer flows into the above factory, and it cannot be deemed as domestic waste, and it does not constitute waste under the Wastes Control Act.

2. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below as it is.

Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 8371 of Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter the same) defines wastes as “waste, materials, sludge, waste oil, waste acid, waste acid, waste eggs, carcasses of animals, etc. that have become unnecessary for people’s living or business activities.” In light of the purport of the former Wastes Control Act to control the generation of wastes to the maximum extent possible and properly treat wastes generated, thereby contributing to the preservation of environment and the improvement of the quality of people’s lives, even if the above liquid fertilizer was stored as the original raw materials of the above factory, so long as it becomes difficult for people to use them for the above production purpose any longer because it was leaked from the storage tank, it shall be deemed as waste.

In addition, since the domestic wastes stipulated in Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Wastes Control Act refer to the wastes other than industrial wastes, the court below should consider the leaked liquid fertilizers as domestic wastes if they are not treated according to the criteria and methods prescribed by the Presidential Decree. However, the court below found them not guilty on the ground that the above liquid fertilizers do not constitute domestic wastes. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above wastes and in the violation of the rules of evidence. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal pointing this out is justified.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)