2. Whether an act of continuing operation constitutes an act subject to punishment under subparagraph 5 of Article 66 and Article 21 of the Environmental Conservation Act, deeming that the production facilities of materials, the performance of which is not proven, falls under the fertilizer manufacturing facilities which are emission facilities under the same Act.

2. Where an administrative authority (Do Governor) takes the order to suspend the operation of a fertilizer manufacturing facility, which is an emission facility, under the Environmental Conservation Act, by deeming the horse for the manufacture of nitrogen, the main ingredient of which is a nitrogen, as the main ingredient, to be the fertilizer manufacturing facility under the Act on the Conservation of Environment. Even if it is difficult to objectively conclude the substance manufactured in the horse as a fertilizer because the performance as a fertilizer is not proven, it cannot be deemed that the defect is serious and obvious, and it does not constitute an administrative disposition that is void as a matter of course, and thus, the act in violation of the order to suspend the operation and continuing operations constitutes an act subject to punishment under subparagraph 5 of Article 6 and Article 21 of the same Act.

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, the same defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 10,000 won into one day.

An order to pay an amount equivalent to each of the above fines shall be issued.

2. Therefore, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Fertilizer Control Act provides that the term “in the first place of a violation of the Fertilizer Control Act” refers to materials to be filled in the land for the purpose of giving nutrition to plants or helping grow plants, and materials to be filled in plants for the purpose of giving nutrition to plants. On the other hand, subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the same Article classify fertilizers into ordinary fertilizers and by-product fertilizers, the official standards on ordinary fertilizers are established or the designation of authorities on fertilizers is prohibited for the purpose of sale, and Article 3 subparag. 5 of the same Act provides that “it shall not be made or imported for the purpose of sale” (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Fertilizer Control Act provides that “any person who intends to produce and sell fertilizers for the purpose of manufacturing or selling them” shall be deemed to have an effect of producing or selling fertilizers for the purpose of sale, and it shall be interpreted that it shall not be subject to strict regulations on producing or selling fertilizers for each item of fertilizer, and that it shall not be subject to permission of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, in light of the purport of the Food and Drug Control Act.”

If the fertilizer under Article 11 of the Fertilizer Control Act is interpreted as such, the act of Defendant 1, who sold together with the publicity materials (in the face of No. 160 to No. 171 of the Investigation Records, up to No. 160 of the Investigation Records) explaining the purpose, effect, and method of use of the fertilizer under Article 11 of the Fertilizer Control Act, shall be deemed to fall under the production and sale business of fertilizers under Article 11 of the Fertilizer Control Act, but the court below acquitted Defendant 1 on the ground that the act of Defendant 1 was not subject to permission under the above Act, by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 11 of the Fertilizer Control Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is not illegal.

Article 15 of the Environmental Preservation Act provides that "any person who intends to install emission facilities shall obtain permission from the head of the environmental office under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" with respect to the violation of the Environmental Preservation Act, and Article 21 of the same Act provides that "the head of the environmental office shall order the person who installs emission facilities without obtaining permission under the provisions of Article 15 to suspend the operation of the emission facilities or to close the emission facilities (Article 63 of the same Act and Article 49 (1) 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are delegated to the Mayor/Do governor the authority to order the suspension of operation under the provisions of this Article)" (Article 63 of the same Act and Article 49 (1) 12 of the same Act are delegated to the Mayor/Do governor). The term "discharge facilities" are defined as "facilities, machinery, apparatus and other objects which discharge pollutants, etc. which cause or are likely to cause damage to the national health and living environment due to noise, vibration, vibration, malodor, malodor, etc., and Article 3 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Environmental Act is subdivided.

However, the defect in administrative acts (disposition) is serious. The defect in the process and form of an order to suspend operation refers to cases where it is impossible to recognize the binding force as an administrative act, which is significant and apparent in its substance. The mere fact-finding is not included in such cases. According to the statement of confirmation bound on No. 96 of the investigation records of this case and the statement of the suspect protocol of the judicial police officer, it is hard to find that the Defendants violated the above 800 degrees or 1,000 degrees or 4 meters in length and 35 degrees or less in light of its manufacturing facilities and thus, it is hard to find that the Defendants violated the above 100 degrees or 1,000 degrees or less of 80 degrees or less of 1,000, and thus, it is hard to find that the above 100m or more of 40m or more of 5m or more of 5m or less of 5m or less of 5m or less of 5m or less of 5m or less of 5m or less of 5m or less of 1 pin emission facilities.

3. Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

1. Defendant 1

(a) Without permission, from March 10, 1985 to July 30 of the same year, the company’s cleaning Yannam-gun (defluorial omitted location), the company’s plant, and the company’s plant, with one production facility for the manufacture of nitrogen, and with 125 won to 150 km per seed and farm owner, etc., a fertilizer, by heating, crushinging and melting a mass of six nutritional elements of a plant, cium, magium, etc., which are ingredients of a mass of six nutritional elements of a plant, and by absorbing and melting a microbes with excellent organic decomposition performance, and then producing 60,000 gg of 35,00 g of which are fertilizer, and selling it to seed and seedling and farm owner, etc. at 125 g per kilogram.

B. From around May 13, 1985 to July 30 of the same year, a person who, in violation of the order of suspension of operation of the above discharge facilities from around July 1985, has been ordered by the Chungcheong Do governor to suspend operation of the above discharge facilities from around May 13, 1985 while installing 1 12 square meters (12 square meters in a street) for the manufacturing of the above nitrate, which is a pollutant discharge facility, from around the above factory without permission from the above factory.

2. Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. committed the act identical to that of Defendant 1, the representative director, in relation to the same defendant's business.

1. Each statement consistent with the above-mentioned of defendant 1 among the trial records set forth in Articles 3, 4, 10, and 16 of the court below;

1. The statement that corresponds to Non-Indicted 2's statement among the 16th trial records of the court below

1. Statement corresponding thereto among each protocol of suspect examination of Defendant 1 prepared by a public prosecutor and assistant judicial police officer;

1. Statement on Nonindicted 3’s written statement prepared by the prosecutor, which corresponds to this;

1. Each statement of Nonindicted 4’s written confirmation bound on Nonindicted 4’s page 38 of investigation records, and a copy of an order to suspend the operation issued on the page 95 of the same Act;

1. Each fact in the judgment of the court below can be recognized in full view of the records of the research paper replys to the Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

1. Subparagraph 2 of Article 28, Article 11 (1) of the Fertilizer Control Act, Article 66 subparagraph 5 of the former Environmental Conservation Act, and Article 21 (Selection of Each Fine) of the same Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

(Defendant 2)

Article 32 of the Fertilizer Control Act, Article 70 of the former Environmental Conservation Act

(Defendants)

1. The former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes with Punishment as to Crimes in Violation of the former Environmental Preservation Act as indicated above, with more severe punishment);

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Judge)