[환경보전법위반피고사건][하집1987(2),532]
"Subject of the business of installing and operating unauthorized emission facilities" under Article 15 of the Environmental Conservation Act.
A person who installs and operates emission facilities with permission under the provisions of Article 15 of the Environmental Preservation Act shall be punished under the provisions of Article 70 (Joint Penal Provisions) of the same Act by a person who is a legal obligor, or by a natural person who is an employee or other employed person of the said legal entity, if he commits a violation under the provisions of subparagraph 1 of Article 66 of the Environmental Preservation Act with respect to the business of the said legal entity.
Articles 15, 66, and 70 of the Environmental Preservation Act
Defendant 1 School Foundation and one other
Prosecutor
Seoul District Court Branch Branch of Seoul District Court (86 High Court Decision 117)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant 2 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000 (one million) and by a fine of KRW 3,000,000 (three million).
When Defendant 2 fails to pay the above fine, the same defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 5,000 into one day.
To order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine against Defendant 2.
The gist of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal is that Defendant 2 is merely the field line of the (name omitted of school) university and its subordinate hospital under the Environmental Conservation Act and thus, Defendant 1 school juristic person, which is premised on the defendant's conviction, is not guilty. However, Defendant 2 is an important person in charge of expanding and managing beds, which is the discharge facility of this case, and Defendant 1 is an employee as provided in Article 70 of the Environmental Preservation Act, even if the defendant is not guilty, the school juristic person is the operator of the discharge facility of this case, and thus, even if the defendant is found not guilty, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, as pointed out by the court below, a business operator who installs and operates discharging facilities with permission under Article 15 of the Environmental Conservation Act is a legal obligor. However, if an employee or other natural person of the above legal entity commits an offence under Article 66 subparagraph 1 of the Environmental Conservation Act with respect to the business of the legal entity, the offender, natural person and its affiliated legal entity should be punished under either or Article 70 (Joint Penal Provisions) of the same Act. As such, Defendant 2’s statement at the court below and the current court court, the prosecutor’s written statement as to Defendant 2, written evidence as to the preparation of the protocol of examination of the suspect to the same person as the judicial police officer, and written records as to the (including the name of the school), a copy of the report on the change of the discharge facility manager, the (name of the school), the branch of the affiliated university and the branch of the hospital’s office of the above legal entity from 60 to 198, the manager of the above legal entity’s office was assigned to the above school foundation’s employees and the above facilities’ 19.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the party members are again decided as follows after pleading.
Defendant 2 is the field leader of the (name omitted of a school) university hospital to which Defendant 1 belongs, and Defendant 1’s school foundation is a corporation established for the purpose of conducting elementary, secondary and higher education;
1. Defendant 2
Between May 15, 1984 to August 8, 1985, in order to operate wastewater containing pollutants by installing washing facilities with the sum of 11.8 metres at 11.8 metres without permission from authorities in the (name omitted of schools) university hospital of Seongdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the "School Name omitted") located in Seongdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the "School Name") and discharging wastewater with wastewater containing pollutants.
2. As to the defendant 1 school juristic person, defendant 1
Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Party 1, an employee of the above corporation, committed the same act as that of the above Paragraph 1.
1. Each statement that conforms to the facts stated in the original judgment and the trial court by Defendant 2
1. Each statement that conforms to the judgment in the statement made by the public prosecutor with regard to Defendant 2 and the statement made by the judicial police officer with regard to the same person's handling of affairs;
1. Each statement consistent with the facts stated in the judgment among the statements of Nonindicted 3’s preparation and the written confirmation of Nonindicted 4’s preparation
1. Entry that conform to the facts of the judgment in a copy of the business division table of the university (name of a school omitted) and its affiliated hospital, which is compiled with the records;
Each : Article 70, Article 66 subparag. 1, and Article 15(1) of the Environmental Preservation Act.
Defendant 2: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.
Judges Kim Jop (Presiding Judge)