Defendant 1 and 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be one day, and the sentence shall be included in the above sentence.

All appeals by Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 are dismissed.

A. Defendants

(1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(A) On August 29, 1986, Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. transferred the land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”) approximately 2,177 square meters (number 1 omitted) to Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant land”) and was not its owner, and did not discharge wastes in the course of operating production facilities such as factories and other business facilities on that ground. At present, Nonindicted 1 Corporation is its owner and is implementing a housing site development project on the instant land. Accordingly, the industrial waste discharger under Article 25(1) of the former Wastes Control Act (amended by Act No. 8371 of Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter “Waste Control Act”) regarding the instant land is not Defendant 3 but Nonindicted 1 Corporation.

(B) Defendant 3 agreed with Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. on October 25, 2006, when entering into a contract for waste disposal construction work with Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. on October 25, 2006 for the performance of the obligation arising from a judicial compromise between Nonindicted Co. 1 and this court’s 2006Gahap1981, which was concluded in this court’s claim for damages, that Defendant 3 Co., Ltd shall not have Defendant 4 Co., Ltd dispose of wastes through subcontracting to an enterprise that obtained waste disposal permission. Accordingly, Defendant 3 Co.

(C) The act of Defendant 2’s borrowing of waste soil on the instant land by separating and screening designated wastes and construction wastes into the land does not constitute “treatment” under the Wastes Control Act.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

Even if the facts charged are found guilty, the sentencing of the court below that determined the punishment for Defendant 1 and 2 as a fine of KRW 10 million by each of the 8 months of imprisonment, the suspended sentence of 2 years, and the punishment for Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 as a fine of KRW 10 million is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentencing of the lower court, which determined that the sentence against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 is 8 months of imprisonment, and that is 2 years of suspended sentence, is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants

(a) Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts are recognized.

(1) From 1974 to 1976, Defendant 3 buried a large quantity of industrial wastes generated in the process of manufacturing, etc. of non-ferrous metals, manufacturing, processing, optical fibres, etc., while installing and operating an production plant on the instant land from around 1995 (the instant land was owned by the deceased non-indicted 2, the representative director of Defendant 3, and the aforementioned non-indicted 2, on January 29, 2003, donated it to the non-indicted 3, the representative director of which was the representative director).

(2) After that, when the instant land was incorporated into the Mine Small and Medium Rental Housing Construction Project District implemented by Nonindicted Corporation 1, Nonindicted Corporation 1 acquired the instant land through consultation from Nonindicted Corporation 3 on February 4, 2004.

(3) In around 2005, Gwangju City requested the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation to conduct a detailed soil survey of the instant land, and the result of the survey is as follows.

(A) From the total sample collected from the instant land, various kinds of harmful substances were detected, such as lead, nitrok, cadmium, cadmium, mercury, lead, lead, and PCB (NB chlorinated) beyond the potential level of soil contamination. The soil of the instant land was widely contaminated due to industrial wastes containing harmful substances to the high depth.

(B) The contaminated soil of the instant land falls under the controlled waste, and the volume of the controlled waste subject to disposal falls under 16,164 tons, and the cost of consignment disposal falls under 1,93,000,000 won, including the cost of transportation, etc. (the standard for the commission for public disposal of controlled waste as publicly notified pursuant to Article 5-2(3) of the Wastes Control Act and Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act).

(4) On March 2006, Nonindicted Corporation 1 filed a lawsuit claiming for damages against Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. for the payment of KRW 1,967,00,00,000, which was the sum of the entrusted disposal costs and the detailed soil survey expenses paid to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation. During the above lawsuit, there was a judicial compromise between Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. and the same Defendant to implement the construction to restore the soil contamination of the instant land to its original state at his own expense.

(5) Defendant 1, the managing director of Defendant 3 Co., Ltd., concluded a contract with Defendant 4 Co., Ltd., which is specialized in removal on October 25, 2006 and civil engineering works, on the following terms:

Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. shall, in principle, treat the instant construction as designated wastes at the time of waste treatment.

Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. shall, after completion of the instant construction, request a detailed investigation agency equipped with legal qualifications under the Soil Environment Conservation Act to determine the passing of soil contamination level on the instant land. Costs of detailed investigation shall be borne by Defendant 4 Co., Ltd.

The construction cost of this case shall be KRW 1,210,00,000, and the down payment shall not be separately paid, and 50% of the down payment shall be received at the time of completion, and 50% of the completion payment shall be determined as a result of a detailed investigation after completion of the construction work, and the completion of the final construction work at the time of Non-Indicted 1 and the

(6) Defendant 2, the representative director of Defendant 4 Co., Ltd., entered into a waste disposal contract with Nonindicted Co. 4 and Nonindicted Co. 5 who obtained a construction waste disposal business license. From November 15, 2006 to November 23, 2006, Defendant 2 mobilized heavy equipment, such as booms, owned by Defendant 4 Co., Ltd., and excavated 8,700 tons of waste earth and sand on the land of this case. From the land’s color to the land, 2,90 tons classified as designated waste and classified as b,90 tons of waste, which were transferred to the designated waste, as designated waste after classifying the breath as the designated waste, and the vehicle of this case’s construction site was transferred to the vehicle of this case sent by Nonindicted Co. 4 Co. 5, the remainder 580 tons, and the vehicle of this case directly sent from Nonindicted Co. 5.

(7) Defendant 2 entered into a construction waste disposal contract with Nonindicted Company 6 and Nonindicted Company 7 located in Suwon-si, and disposed of the remaining waste of 7,000 tons as construction waste during the period from June 26, 2007 to July 9 of the same year.

(8) After Defendant 4 received KRW 50 million from Defendant 3 as the payment for the instant construction work, Defendant 4 paid KRW 198,575,685 among them to Nonindicted Co. 4, and KRW 109,847,100 to Nonindicted Co. 5 as the subcontract price.

B. Determination

(1) As to the allegation that Defendant 3 did not constitute an industrial waste discharger under Article 25(1) of the Wastes Control Act

If the facts are as above, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant 3’s company, as an industrial waste discharger per industrial waste producer who operated a production plant which is a place of business on the land of this case, and operated the industrial waste that was discharged as a consequence of his business activities, and entrusted the disposal by a person who obtained a license for self-treatment (self-treatment) or waste disposal business pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Wastes Control Act, illegally buried in the land of this case, which is one of his own management areas, and contaminated the land of this case by heavy metals, etc. without performing the above disposal. The Defendant’s liability for the management and disposal of the industrial waste buried without permission as an industrial waste discharger is not naturally succeeded to and transferred to the transferee even if the ownership of the land of this case was transferred to another person, and the above waste is not caused by the housing site development project, which is executed by Nonindicted Corporation 1.

Therefore, since Defendant 3 was not an industrial waste discharger, who is not the owner of the instant land since 1986, or Nonindicted Corporation 1 was currently implementing the housing site development project on the instant land, it is not acceptable to accept this part of the allegation by Defendant 1 and Defendant 3, such as the industrial waste discharger, etc.

(2) As to the allegation that Defendant 3 entrusted the disposal of the instant wastes to the person who obtained the permission for the waste disposal business through Defendant 4 Company and entrusted the disposal to the unauthorized person.

Article 24(1)3 of the Wastes Control Act provides that when an industrial waste discharger entrusts the disposal of wastes pursuant to Article 25(1) of the same Act, he/she shall verify whether the trustee has the ability to dispose of wastes in compliance with the standards under Article 12 of the same Act. This is because the trustee is naturally equipped with the ability to take appropriate measures and perform duties so that the wastes subject to disposal do not cause harm to human health or the living environment.

In the instant case, the following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: ① Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. entered into the instant construction contract with Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. without a waste disposal business license; and according to the terms of the contract, Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. shall treat the waste of the instant land as designated wastes; however, after completing the waste disposal obligation, Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. shall be subject to the soil contamination passing judgment at its own expense through a detailed investigation agency; and Defendant 4 Co., Ltd shall be paid the remainder of the construction cost after obtaining confirmation of the completion of the final construction works at the time of her pass, and after receiving the payment of the remainder of the construction cost; ② The construction cost of the instant case shall be fully responsible for the instant waste disposal until receiving the determination of the pass of the pollution level of the instant land; ② the construction cost of the instant case shall be more than KRW 50,000,000,0000,000,000 for the construction cost when entrusting the permitted business with the disposal of the instant land. Accordingly, Defendant 3 Co.

(3) As to the assertion that Defendant 2’s act of borrowing waste soil by separating and sorting it into designated waste and construction waste does not constitute “treatment” under the Wastes Control Act

Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Wastes Control Act provides that "treatment" refers to interim treatment by incineration, neutralization, crushing, or incineration, etc., and final treatment by landfill, discharging into the sea, etc. of wastes. Article 26(4) of the same Act classifys waste disposal business into four types of business: waste collection and transportation business, waste interim treatment business, waste interim treatment business, final waste treatment business, and waste comprehensive treatment business. In full view of the purport of each of the above provisions, "treatment" under the Wastes Control Act refers to a series of flow pertaining to the appropriate disposal of wastes, and in detail, it includes storage, collection, transportation, and treatment, which are a series of acts from the generation of wastes to the final return to the natural environment. Among them, "collection" means keeping wastes in a state where wastes can be collected and transported, and "interim treatment" means a final treatment prior to the final treatment by reclamation, discharge into the sea area, etc., and thus, it is reasonable to view that the waste is included in the statutory separation, purification, etc. of wastes by artificial means, such as physical, chemical or biological treatment.

In the case of this case, if Defendant 2 excavated the land of this case contaminated by heavy metal as the above acknowledged facts and viewed it as the land surface, it was classified as designated wastes, and if not, it is obvious that the act of Defendant 2 falls under the concept of "collection" and "treatment" under the Wastes Control Act, and it is clearly clear that the act of Defendant 2 falls under the concept of "collection" and "treatment" under the Wastes Control Act. Thus, it is technically impossible to separate the contaminated soil of this case into the area where industrial wastes are incinerated and mixed and filled with construction waste, and it is impossible to classify the contaminated soil of this case into the designated waste. Further, even though it is impossible to classify the contaminated soil from heavy metals into the land, it is not possible to distinguish it into the contaminated soil of this case, it is difficult to view that Defendant 2 arbitrarily sold the contaminated soil of this case into the designated waste disposal business, and there is no possibility for Defendant 2 to separate the contaminated waste disposal business from the soil of this case to the final waste disposal business, and thus, Defendant 2 did not directly treat the contaminated soil in the part of this case.

3. Judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing

The environmental crime is not only a wide range of damage caused by pollution due to the characteristics of environmental materials, but also a wide range of damage due to the dynamic and serious infringement of human life and body, and the cause of such damage is also difficult.

The Defendants, even though they well aware of the fact that the instant soil was seriously contaminated by nitrok, alk, and alot, including PCB, which is a fatal cancer in the human body, were treated as construction waste, etc. by using a convenient method with the aim of promoting only their economic interests. Such unlawful disposal results threaten our people’s lives and physical health and threaten our lives and subsequent descendants’ lives.

Nevertheless, even if Defendant 3 did not repent his wrong until the trial was held, it is consistent with the old defense that Defendant 3 was not a business operator of the instant land, or Defendant 2’s act cannot be deemed as a waste treatment. Therefore, each punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants cannot be deemed as unfairly heavy, and rather, the sentence imposed by the lower court to Defendant 1 and 2 is unreasonable.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, although the defendants' appeal is not well-grounded, since the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants 1 and 2 is well-grounded, pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants 1 and 2 is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

(a) Defendant 1: Article 60 subparagraph 2 of the Wastes Control Act and Article 25 (1) of the same Act.

(b) Defendant 2: Subparagraph 1 of Article 59 of the Wastes Control Act and Article 26 (3) of the same Act.

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

Judges Cho Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)