[폐기물관리법위반][공1992.4.1.(917),1080]
Whether the term “homicides used for food” constitutes “wastes or industrial wastes as prescribed in subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 2 of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 4363, Mar. 8, 1991) (negative)
In light of the provisions of Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 4363 of March 8, 1991) which provides industrial wastes as stipulated in subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the same Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 802 of May 30, 1987), items that are likely to fall under such item are “vegetable solid residues” stipulated in subparagraph 2(a)(4) of attached Table 1 of the same Rule, but they do not include standards and methods for animal disposal under Article 12 of the same Rule which determines the method of interpretation or the standards and methods of industrial waste disposal. However, considering the fact that administrative penalties require strict interpretation in the case of administrative penalty laws, it is not only the necessity of the regulation but also the industrial wastes as stipulated in subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the same Act, and it does not constitute a sanitary definition or evaluation of wastes under subparagraph 1 of the same Article.
Article 2 subparagraphs 1 and 3 of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 3904, Mar. 8, 1991); Article 2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 802, Oct. 26, 1990); Article 2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 369, Oct. 26, 199); Article 1-2 (a) (4) of the attached Table 1.
Co., Ltd. and one other
Prosecutor
Attorney Jeong-won
Suwon District Court Decision 90No988 delivered on December 6, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.
Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the former Wastes Control Act (Act No. 3904, Dec. 31, 1986; hereinafter the same) provides that "industrial wastes" mean wastes, such as sludge, residues, waste oil, waste eggs, waste rubber, waste synthetic resin, etc., which are generated in the course of business activities, as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare. Article 2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Wastes Control Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 802, May 30, 1987; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "industrial wastes under subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the former Wastes Control Act are as listed in attached Table 1, and attached Table 1 lists the types of industrial wastes by dividing them into specific industrial wastes and general industrial wastes. In this case, it is necessary not only to interpret the standards and methods of industrial wastes, but also to interpret the standards and methods of industrial wastes as defined in attached Table 1-2 Item 2(a) (4) but also to interpret the regulations and methods of industrial wastes."
In addition, Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the same Act provides that "waste" refers to garbage, ashes, sludge, foul waste, waste oil, waste acid, waste eggs, animal carcasses, etc., which have become unnecessary for human life or business activities, and if such soil is intended to be used for food, it does not constitute "waste" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the same Act even if it is not suitable for food for sanitation or appraisal.
The measure that the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the wastes of this case on the ground that the wastes of this case, which the court below was living in the resistant experiment, are not wastes, is justified, and there is no misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)