폐기물관리법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Although credibility exists in the E’s statement that conforms to the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court rendered a judgment not guilty of the whole facts charged in the instant case on the basis of the Defendant’s statement. There is an error of law due to omission
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: (b) it is difficult to understand that the Defendant entrusted G Co., Ltd. with the disposal of construction wastes to reclaim part of the construction wastes on the instant land in which he/she would reside; (c) F constructed a building without obtaining permission from the competent authority on the instant land adjacent to the instant land; and (d) removed the said building upon Defendant’s report; (c) there was a motive to make a false statement; and (d) there was a situation in which the reclamation of construction wastes on the instant land was revealed to be subject to criminal punishment; and (e) there was sufficient motive to make a false statement to the effect that he/she takes charge of his/her responsibility for deviating from his/her responsibility; and (e) in light of the fact that there is sufficient motive to make a false statement to the effect that he/she will be responsible for the reclamation of construction wastes on the instant land; and (e) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone, ordered the Defendant to reclaim wastes.
The acquittal was pronounced on the ground that there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge it and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
B. Under the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, Q, a director of G Co., Ltd., worked in the company, such as the Department L, is much more than the wastes actually disposed of by the construction waste disposal plan and the report completion of the construction waste disposal plan.