(b) The case holding that the former Environment Preservation Act does not apply to an offender provided for in Article 70 of the former Environmental Preservation Act, where the former operator of the livestock industry cooperative, who is qualified as an environmental engineer, had a person in charge of the wastewater treatment of slaughterhouses, failed to operate the slaughterhouse wastewater normally;

B. In a case where the Defendant, who is a representative of the livestock cooperative, takes overall control of the affairs of the cooperative and conducts daily work, had an artificial insemination who is qualified as an environmental engineer concurrently work for slaughterhouse wastewater treatment, and failed to normally operate the prevention facilities due to his neglect of his duties, the Defendant’s negligence in supervising the person in charge of the wastewater treatment business, who did not thoroughly supervise the management status of slaughterhouse wastewater pollution prevention facilities, cannot be deemed to have been acknowledged, and thus, does not constitute an offender under Article 70 of the former Environmental Preservation Act.

1. The application of the penal provisions under Articles 66 subparagraph 1 and 16-2 (1) of the former Environmental Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 4260 of Aug. 1, 1990) is obvious by its own rule that the person who has obtained permission for the installation of discharge facilities (see Article 15-2 (1)) is a business operator, i.e., a person who has obtained permission for the installation of discharge facilities. However, Article 70 of the same Act provides that when the representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation or an individual commits a crime in violation of the provisions of Articles 66 through 69, the penal provisions under each of the above Articles shall apply to such corporation or individual in addition to the punishment of the offender, and the purpose of this provision is to punish both the offender and the individual even if the corporation or individual, who is a business operator or the individual, does not directly commit the violation of each of the above Articles, and thus, the penal provisions under this provision also applies to the business operator (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do384, Dec. 384, 19, 198080000

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant was in the position of representing the above cooperative as a manager of B livestock industry cooperatives in charge of daily work; (b) when the environment-related business was gradually important for the period of August 6, 198, the Nonindicted Party C, who was working as an artificial insemination worker, was in the capacity of Grade II environmental engineer; (c) he was in charge of the production cost investigation and the slaughterhouse wastewater treatment business from the date on which he was in charge of his work; (d) the Defendant, who was in charge of performing his daily work, requested to supplement the number of other employees; and (e) the Defendant, who was stationed in the slaughterhouse, did not properly perform the above wastewater treatment business without any other evidence of the fact that the above slaughterhouse contamination prevention facilities were ordinarily processed by inserting one lane, and did not properly perform the above wastewater treatment facilities at the time of his normal disposal; (e) the Defendant did not perform the above wastewater treatment business without any other reason, and (e) did not perform the above work without any instruction and improvement of the 3000.

Upon examining the evidence established by the court below based on the records, we affirm the above fact-finding of the court below. In light of the facts acknowledged by the court below, the defendant's negligence under the direction and supervision that the defendant did not thoroughly supervise the management status of slaughterhouse's slaughterhouse facilities for preventing the pollution of this case can not be deemed to be an intentional failure to operate the prevention facilities. Thus, the court below's judgment that the defendant does not constitute an actor under Article 70 of the former Environmental Preservation Act is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. We do not find the argument.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)