건설폐기물의재활용촉진에관한법률위반
The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.
Defendant A, as a director of the business division in Ulsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, is a corporation incorporated for the purpose of collecting and transporting construction waste, and Defendant C is a corporation established for the purpose of collecting and transporting construction waste, which is established for the purpose of the collection and transportation of construction waste, as a corporation that employs the above Defendant A, a corporation that is established for the purpose of collecting and transporting construction waste.
No construction waste collection and transportation business entity shall be sub-entrusted or sub-entrusted with the transportation of construction waste.
Nevertheless, Defendant A, on October 30 through November 20, 2012, at the site of “H 1 Section Construction Work,” Defendant A took charge of collecting and transporting waste concrete, which is construction waste, 118 times in total, using dump trucks (mump trucks 25 tons) from the site of “C Co., Ltd.” to the “C Co., Ltd.,” located in Gyeongbuk-si, Gyeong-si, and Defendant A, on October 30, 2012, had Defendant B collect and transport waste concrete four times with waste-based vehicles belonging to D, which is permitted to collect and transport waste in order to collect and transport waste concrete as above, and re-entrusted the collection and transportation of waste-based concrete by violating the prohibition provisions on sub-entrustment of construction waste transport as a construction waste collection and transportation business operator by November 20, 2012, Defendant C Co., Ltd. and Defendant D Co., Ltd., the aforementioned act as Defendant D Co., Ltd., the aforementioned act.
Judgment
The Defendants and the defense counsel request Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant C”) to rent a truck for transport purposes for the purpose of transporting wastes by Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant D”), not for re-entrustment.