(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2007. 11. 6. 선고 2007고단4425 판결[폐기물관리법위반][미간행]
Defendant 1 and 3
Statherium
Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al.
Defendant 1 and 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for August, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 by a fine of KRW 10 million.
The number of detention days prior to the issuance of this judgment shall be calculated by including each day in the penalty against Defendant 1 and 2.
However, with respect to the defendant 1 and 2, the execution of punishment shall be suspended for each two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
An order to pay an amount equivalent to a fine shall be issued.
Defendant 1 is a corporation established for the purpose of removing and conducting civil engineering works, etc., Defendant 1’s representative director, Defendant 2, Defendant 3 corporation, and Defendant 4 corporation established for the purpose of refining non-ferrous metals, manufacturing electric construction works, etc. in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter omitted), and Defendant 1’s corporation established for the purpose of removing and conducting civil engineering works, etc., as the chief management officer of Defendant 3 corporation located in Jung-gu, Seoul.
1. On October 18, 2006, Defendant 1: (a) at the Seoul Central District Court of Seoul, Defendant 3: (b) decided that Defendant 3 was the person responsible for soil contamination of the site located in Gwangju Seo-dong (number 1 omitted); and (c) performed the construction work to restore the state of land contamination to its own cost (i.e., the settlement result of the Seoul Central District Court, the disposal cost of KRW 1,967,00,000) until December 31, 206; (d) performed the construction work to restore Nonindicted 1’s disposal of the waste of KRW 2,177 square meters into the land located in the Gyeonggi Housing Site Development Zone; and (e) entrusted the disposal of the waste of the waste of KRW 2,177 square meters to the person who obtained the permission for the disposal of the waste on his own, and (e) entrusted the disposal of the waste of the waste to Defendant 4, who did not obtain the permission for the disposal business, to the extent of waste disposal to 70 to 60 tons from 30 to 5.7.15.7.
2. Although Defendant 2 obtained permission from the authorities, Defendant 2 without permission
A. On November 15, 2006, from November 23, 2006 to November 23, 2006, waste soil and sand companies with 8,700 tons of waste soil and sand on land within a small river site development zone are operated in a manner that designated wastes are divided into 2,90 tons and construction waste 5,80 tons into land and then arbitrarily separate and separate them from land, and treat them through Nonindicted Co. 4 and Nonindicted Co. 5, respectively;
B. From June 26, 2007 to July 9, 2007, waste earth and sand stored in this place was not divided into designated wastes and construction waste, but disposed of as construction waste through Nonindicted 6 companies located in the Gyeonggi Water source, Nonindicted 7 companies located in the Gyeonggi Water Quality, etc.
Waste treatment business was operated.
3. Defendant 3 Co., Ltd.: (a) at the same time and place as set forth in paragraph (1), Defendant 1, who is the managing director of the Defendant Company, entrusted the disposal of waste by arbitrarily separating and screening waste waste in an amount equivalent to 15,700 tons of waste earth and sand from the Defendant’s business through Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. without permission for waste disposal business.
4. Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. run an unauthorized waste disposal business on the same date, time, and place as set forth in paragraph (2) by Defendant 2, who is the representative director of the Defendant Company, arbitrarily divided and selected an amount equivalent to 15,700 tons of waste earth and sand and disposing of them with designated wastes and construction waste without permission from the authority.
1. Defendants’ legal statement
1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants by the prosecution
1. Each report on investigation;
1. Article applicable to criminal facts;
Points 1 and 3: Article 60(2), Article 25(1), and Article 62 of the Wastes Control Act
Points 2 and 4: Article 59(1), Article 26(3), and Article 62 of the Wastes Control Act
Defendant 1 and 2
1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;
Defendant 1 and 2: Article 57 of the Criminal Act
1. Suspension of execution;
Defendant 1 and 2: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act
1. Order of provisional payment;
Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 asserted in this case that the waste discharger under the Wastes Control Act was Nonindicted Company 1 and was not Defendant 3. However, as long as Defendant 3 was liable to dispose of wastes, it is deemed as an industrial waste discharger under the Wastes Control Act. Therefore, this assertion is without merit.
The Defendants asserted that Defendant 4 corporation entrusted the disposal of the instant wastes on behalf of Defendant 3 corporation, and did not entrust the disposal of wastes to an enterprise without permission, or did not operate the waste disposal business without permission. However, as long as Defendant 4 corporation entrusted the disposal of wastes to a third party for a given price, it shall be deemed that it operated the waste disposal business even if it entrusted the disposal of wastes to a third party without a direct disposal. Defendant 4 corporation did not obtain permission for the waste disposal business, and therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
Meanwhile, considering the impact of environmental pollution on daily life, it is reasonable to impose severe punishment on the Defendants, but the Defendants were indicted as committing an error in the administrative procedure that they did not obtain permission, and as seen earlier, there are some considerations in the vindications of the Defendants as seen earlier, and the sentence shall be determined by taking into account such points and all other circumstances as revealed in the arguments.
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.
Judges Choi Byung-hee